English Puritan & Reformed

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply

William Fulke (1538-1589) · 292,070 words · 1298 min

Large work readerShowing section 7 of 8. Corpus search still uses the whole work; source find opens the first matching section.

Section 7/8

Where Christ or his faith is named, thence all Idolatry is driven, & y ^• deceitful guiles of y ^e devil are detected & made open.

Loe (saith Sand, 〈…〉 name of Christ putteth away all Idolatry.

Yea sir, where it 〈◊〉 truly professed & believed, not wheresoever it is • ounded & heard with y ^e outward ears. This therefore pro ••• not y ^e contrary, but Papists worshippers of bread & 〈◊〉 , yea of stocks & stones, be Idolaters, as well as y ^e barb • rous people in the new Indies, where Christ & Christi •• faith is named, but not embraced nor believed, oftenti •• of y ^e namers thenselves. But Ie. in li. 2. in Esa ca. 4. affirm •• Post &c.

after y ^e coming of Christ, all idols to have hold •• their peace.

If Sand. were not a proud asse, which disd •• neth to learn, I would teach him, y ^t Jerome speaketh o •• oracles & answers, which by y ^e devil are given at diu •• idols, all which, not only Ierō a christiā, but also Pluta ••• an heathen man, affirmeth frō y ^t time to have ceased and not to have spoken anymore. But Jerome was neue • 〈◊〉 impudent to affirm, y ^t there could be no idolatry cōm •• ted since y ^e time of Christ. Yet San. affirmeth, y ^t lightly n •• so much as any heretic, yet hath professed to worship ••• artificial Idol, made w ^t the hands of mā. You may se, h •• lightly this man is seen in y ^e old writers, or else how impudently he dissēbleth y ^t which he knoweth. First Sim •• Magus accounted y ^e father of all heretics did set forth the Images of himself and of Helena his harlot to be worshipped of his disciples, even as the Images of Jupiter, Minerva, &c. were among the Gentiles. Epiphani •• lib. 1. Tom. 2. praefat. and Augu. Haer. 1. Secondly Carp • crates made Images privily of Jesus, and of Paul, and 〈◊〉 Homer and of Pythagoras, and did offer incense unto them and worship them. Epiph. and Aug. Lib. 6. Thirdly the Gnostikes had Images painted in colors, and some of gold and silver and other matter, which they said were the Images of Jesus made under Pontius Pilate whē he lived among men. Epiph. Haer. 27. Fourthly the Melchisedechians which were in Arabia Petraea, Robam, and Edom, worshipped the Image of Moses, which they made. Epip. contra Melch. Haer. 55. Finally the Collyridians committed Idolatry unto the Virgin Marie. Epipha. cont. Collyrid. Haer. 79. Beside so many false Christians as in S. Augustine's time worshipped pictures & sepulchers. And to omit them y ^t worshipped Images in France, whō Gregory unto Serenus affirmeth to have committed Idolatry, although he disallowed the breaking of the Images.

But Papists are not so insensible (saith Sand.) to worship bread made with the bakers hand. why not? as well as to worship metal, wood, & stone, in your images. yet Chrysostom saith, there were few cities left in his time, in which Idolatry was used: & there is no city in Christendom where y ^e sacrament, hath not ben worshipped (saith Sander) for so many hundredth years. Yes sir, where the Waldenses were in Calabria, in France, Boëmia, & other places, your bread worship prevailed not. And God be thanked, there are now many hundred cities, in which y ^t Idolatry is not openly committed, except it be by stelth in corners, & so no doubt, but heathenishe Idolatry, was committed in most cities in y ^e world in Chrysostom's time, considering what number there were of heathen men, in all places. Therefore where Sander saith, y ^t all Christians forever have worshipped the sacrament as y ^t very body & blod of Christ, is utterly false, seeing it is not much above 300. years, since Pope Honorius made y ^e decree of y ^t kind of worship, which Sand. defendeth: which decree had ben in vain, if all Christians forever had worshipped it. But Sand. at length asketh, if there be no idolatry in Christendō? he answereth to much of inward idolatry, but no outward idolatry at all. Inward idolatry he counteth, covetousness & heresies: so was Luther y ^e first idolater of our age: thē Zwingli, thē Calvin, & the sacramentarie english idol, y ^e vanity of which assertion, to have cited, is abundanly to have confuted. He concludeth, y ^t to say y ^t the blessed sacrament of Christ is an Idol, seemeth necessary to employ, that Christ instituted an Idol. This implicatiō must come frō such a senseless Idol, as Sand, is, for otherwise they y ^t have eyes & see, & ears & hear, can easily conceive, y ^t an holy sacrament instituted by god, by abuse of Idolaters, may be turned into an Idol, as was the brazen serpent, & therefore was broken by Hezekiah. Neither did Christ give any occasion of Idolatry, by his words in the supper, more then God did by his commandment in the wilderness.

CAP. III.

The adoration of Christ's body in the sacramen 〈…〉 proved out of the New Testament.

The Apostle saith, the unworthy receiver, eateth and drinketh damnation, not putting a difference between our Lord's body, and other meats (saith Sander.) And this difference is in two pointes, the first in due preparation of our selves, which is required in other sacraments to receive the grace of God, the seconde is, in respect of the substance of the meat, that is received, which is to be honored and adored. I answer, the earthly substance is not to be adored, the heavenly substance is to be adored in heaven where it is really present, and not upon the earth: and as well in Baptism, as in the supper. But Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. • 8. saith, he eateth unworthily: who considereth not as it behooveth, the greatness of the things set forth, not weighing diligently the greatness of the gift. He speaketh not of the effect (saith Sander,) but of the substance of the Sacrament: because he saith afterward: If thou doest learn diligently who is s 〈…〉 forth: thou needest to account nothing else. I answer that admit he speaketh of the heavenly substance of the Sacrament, that is Christ, yet he aduocheth no real presence of him under the forms of bread and wine, for Christ is set forth in all his Sacraments, both of the old Testament and the new. Christ washeth us in baptism even as he feedeth us in his supper, and he purgeth us with his blood, as verily, as he feedeth us with his body and blood. Neither doth Ambrose in 1. Cor. 11. mean any other thing: when he saith, We must judge that he is the Lord, whose blood we drink in a mystery. For to drink the blood of Christ in a mystery, is to drink it spiritually, by mean of a Sacrament, even as to be washed with the blood of Christ in a mystery, is to be purged by the blood of Christ, by mean of the Sacrament of Baptism. Wherefore the conclusion that Sander inferreth, is false, and hath • o ground nor consequence, we must judge the sub •• ance of this Sacrament, as the substance of him that • s G • d, therefore we must adore the substance of this • acrament as God. For admit that I must adore the bo • ie of Christ which is God, yet it followeth not, that I • ust adore it under the visible forms of the bread and • ine. For the body of Christ which (as Irenae us saith) • s the heavenly part of this sacrament, is in heaven, and • ot united to the bread and wine, or to the shapes of thē • n personal union, more then the blood of Christ, or • he holy Ghost unto the water in Baptism, & yet I must • door the heavenly substance of the sacrament of Bap • isme, as that which is God, or in personal union united • o God, as is the humanity of Jesus Christ our Savior. But Chrysostom saith further, in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. The very table is the strength of our soul, the sinews of the mind, the bond of confidence, our foundation, hope, health, light, life. I answer, this is nothing else, but the effect of our redemption, whereof we are assured, by participation of that table. As for the heavenly substance, that it is in heaven, Chrysostom sufficiently declareth, when he affirmeth in the same Homily, that we must become eagles, and flee into heaven, for where the dead body is, thither will the eagles be gathered. Wherefore the adoration, that is defended cannot be proved by the true substance of the sacrament considered, but by the real presence and personal union thereof unto the outward elements: which if Sander cannot show, he laboreth in vain, to tell us of the true substance of the sacrament, which we confess to be the body and blood of Christ, unto the worthy receiver: but not personally united to that bread and wine, or the shapes of them. But now let us hear, what he hath to say, out of Saint Augustine, Epi. 118. ad Ianuarium: who answereth the question: Whether they do better, that receive the communion every day, or they which at certain times only.

Neuter eorum exhonorat &c. Neither of them depriveth the body and blood of our Lord of honor, if each of them strive who may honor best, the most healthful sacrament. For as well the Centurion as Zacchaeus did honor our Savior in manner by contrary means: the one by receiving him with joy into his house: the other by saying, Lord, I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof. And as among the Jews, Manna tasted to every man, according to his own will, in the mouth of the faithful: even so it is to be judged, concerning the receiving of that sacrament, into every Christians mouth. For both one man for honor sake, doeth not take it every day: another for honors sake, dareth not to omit to take it in any day: As Manna would no loothsomenes, so this meat will no contempt. For the Apostle for that cause saith, it to have been unworthily received of them, Qui hoc non discernebant a caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita, which did not discern this thing, from other meats by a veneration singularly due. For straight, when he had said, he eateth & drinketh damnatiō to himself: be said moreover, Not discerning our Lord's body, the which appeareth sufficiently in all that place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently marked.

This place to Sander, seemeth marvelous notable, for honor due to the sacrament. And who is he that thinketh the sacrament not to be honorable? Verily he that honoreth not the sacrament of baptism, is an heretic: and yet he that adoreth the water of baptism as the holy Ghost, or as the blood of Christ, is an idolater. But Sander hath no less then ten observations of this place, which for tediousness I will not rehearse all, but only such as in which I dissent from him. In the fourth observation he noteth, that we must strive to honor the sacrament, whether by this mean or that it skilleth not, so it be honored. If he understand of those two means, of which Augustine speaketh. I agree with him, if he mean that it skilleth not by what means so ever we honor the sacrament, I say, he hath no such ground in Saint Augustine. In the fifth observation he saith, If it were in deed the substance of bread and wine, he would never exhort us to be so careful, howe to honor a mere creature, were it never so great a sign. I answer, we honor not a mere creature, when we honor the sacrament, for his sake that instituted the same: for we honor God, and yet the earthly substance of the sacrament is indeed the substance of bread and wine. We honor not a mere creature, when we honor a magistrate, and yet the magistrate, in substance is a man. In y ^e ninth observation, he asketh what is a veneration or worshipping singularly due, but such a worship, of which sort there is but one, and in the tenth he saith, such a worshipping that only is, which is due to God: who as he hath no fellow in nature: so he hath no partaker in honor. I answer, the veneration, honor, worship, or reverence, due singularly to the sacrament, is spoken of Augustine in comparison of all other meats, and not of all other things in general. His words are, Which did not discern the sacrament, from all other meats by a reverence singularly due to it, that is to say, of all other meat, only the sacrament ought to have that reverence or honor: Even so the water of baptism must be discerned from all other waters, veneratione singulariter debita, by a veneration or reverence singularly due unto it, being consecrated to the mystical washing away of our sins, and yet no divine honor must be given to the water of baptism. Wherefore S. Augustine meaneth nothing less, then that the sacrament should be worshipped as God & man, really present under those visible shapes of bread & wine, as Sander impudently doth slander him. But it is worthy to be remembered (saith he) That Augustine useth the word Sacramentum, for the substance of Christ's flesh contained under the sign of bread. Who will grant this unto Sander? well, if you will not grant it, he hath reason to prove it. For Augustine (saith he) would never have granted, that either the substance of material bread, or the form thereof, ought to be honored. For honor can be givē to no unreasonable creatures. Is this that Sander, which defendeth the honoring of images? or else be images reasonable creatures? But he careth not what he saith, so he may seem to say something, to the matter in hand.

In deed Augustine would never defend that diuice honor should be given to the sacrament, but there is a kind of honor, which may be given, even unto the unreasonable creatures, not in respect of themselves, but in respect of him, to whom all honor, and glory is dew, if they be of him taken and appointed to any honorable use.

Last of all, we must consider, what it should mean, that Augustine saith, The Sacrament may be honored by our abstaining, sometimes from receiving it into our mouths, whereas it is no honor to God, if we should any moment abstain to feed on him by faith, and in spirit. Therefore it is a worthier kind of substance, which is received in the sacrament, then the grace is which is the effect of spiritual eating. For his grace cannot come, except we first be made meet to receive it. But his body may come to our bodies, and so may condemn us, before we are meet to receive it. To this frivolous collection I answer, that there is no honor done to the Sacrament, by abstaining from it, but by humility, as the similitude of the Centurion declareth, who counted himself unworthy that the Lord should come under his roof. Again, Augustine defendeth not the act of either of both partes, as good of it self, but making that to be indifferent, he only defendeth their intent and meaning, which was to yield due reverence to the Lord's sacrament, the one by often receiving, the other by humble intermission, least the offenses, should in their weak nature, breed contempt of so high a mystery. For although we ought continually to feed on Christ by faith, yet it is not necessary, nor convenient, nor possible that the pledge and seal of this spiritual feeding, should every moment be received. But only at such times, as the Church & Elders thereof shall think expedient, for the renewing of our remembrance, and confirming of our faith by the visible tokens of Christ's institution. So that no worthier substance can be gathered to be received in the Sacrament, then the grace of God. And where Sander saith, that his grace cannot come, except we be first made meet to 〈◊〉 I answer, that we are not made meet to receive the grace of God, but only by the grace of God preventing all preparation of our own. As for his body coming into our bodies, when it is proved out of the word of God, it shall be granted, but not before.

Finally, whereas he gathereth it is the same substance of Christ, which is received: of which y ^e Centurion said, I am not worthy y ^t thou shouldest enter under my roof: I answer, he may no more urge the substance of Christ, in the one similitude of the Centurion, then he will alow me to urge it is not the same substance, by the other similitude of Manna, which Augustine likewise useth. As for the same words of the Centurion, used in the Liturgy, ascribed to Chrysostom in adoring the sacrament, I deny that any adoration is meant unto the Sacrament, or that those words are spoken unto the Sacrament, but unto Christ in heaven, whose Sacrament that is. What is said or done in the Mass book, I neither know, nor care. That Origen Hom. 5. in diuersos, exhorteth them that receive the Sacrament, to use that speech of the Centurion, it proveth neither adoration, nor carnal manner of presence. For immediately before, he hath these words:

Inerat & nunc dominus sub tectuns credentium, duplici figura vel more. Nunc enim quando sancti & Deo acceptabiles ecclesiarum antistites sub tectum tuum intrant, tunc ibidem per eos dominus ingreditur. Et in sic existimas tanquam dominum suscipient. Et aliud: quando sanctum cibum, &c. The Lord doth now also enter under y ^e roof of the faithful in a double figure or manner. For now when the holy and acceptable to God, the rulers of the Churches, do enter under thy roof, then even there, the Lord by them doth enter. And think thou, even as receiving the Lord him self. And again, when thou receivest that holy and incorruptible meat &c.

Behold Origen saith, Christ entereth in a figure, and after such manner as he entereth by his ministers: of which entrance, he teacheth man likewise to say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: therefore this saying importeth no substance of the natural body of Christ really present in the sacrament.

CAP. V.

That the fathers of the first six hundredth years after Christ did adore the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Altar.

The first, which is Dionysius, falsely called y ^e Areopagite, could be no writer of y ^e first 600. years, whom neither Euseb. nor Hieronymus, nor Germadius, gatherers of all ecclesiastical writers, before their time did know, Concerning his saying, I refer the reader to mine answer to Heskins, lib. 2. cap. 47. As for Pachymeres cannot be elder then his autor Dionyse, on whom he writeth his Paraphrasis. The next is Cyprian, which lib. 2. Ep. 3. saith, that our sacrifice is Christ: but Christ is to be adored (saith Sander:) ergo the sacrifice which is the Sacrament. I answer, whatsoever after any manner is called Christ, is not to be adored. Whosoever receiveth any of Christ's disciples, receiveth Christ: but he shall be an Idolater, if he give divine honor to him, which is due only to the person of Christ. The like answer I make to that Ambrose saith, de ijs qui myst. cap. 9. that Christ is in the Sacrament: To Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. calling the Sacrament the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life: To Euseb. lib. 10. cap. 10. calling it a Sacrifice full of God, and the dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's table: To Cyrillus, lib. 3. in John cap. 37. saying, that by the mysteries we are made partakers of the divine nature. Neither do the sayings of Cyrillus, nor Hilarius, lib. 4. cap. 18. prove a personal union of Christ with the Sacrament, when they say it maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally, and by a natural participation: for they say not so simply, but under a Sacrament, under a mystery: &c. that is, the Sacrament doth assure us, that we are truly made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, after an heavenly and divine manner, and not only are joined to him in love and faith, and will, but are made flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, by his incarnation and holy spirit, uniting us unto him, in a mystical body, not in a personal union: for if anything which is truly the body of Christ, must be adored with divine honor, the Church of God should be so adored, which is the body of Christ, and so called in the Scripture.

Finally Hesychius calling the Sacrament the bread of life, and the mystical loaves, which quicken us, &c. gave no divine honor unto it, as personally united unto Christ, but as to an holy mystery, and seal of our spiritual feeding and conjunction with Christ. For Hesychius affirmeth, that mystery to be both bread and flesh, in Levite. lib. 2. chap. 8. But Sander upon these sayings, buildeth that the Fathers affirmed, that which was on the table, to be the divine substance, yea the substance and nature of God which is to be adored, and cannot be eaten corporally, but in the Sacrament. And yet no one father, that he hath cited, saith any such thing. If Cyril say, we are by the mysteries made partakers of the divine nature: Saint Peter saith by God's promises we are made partakers of the divine nature, 2. Pet. 1. Yet not of the divine substance: And to say, the Godheade can be corporally eaten, in the Sacrament, it is monstrous heresy. When Cyrillus saith, Christ dwelleth in us corporally, he saith not by eating the Sacrament, we eat GOD or Christ corporally, but the power of the mystical blessing maketh Christ to dwell in us corporallie, by participation of the flesh of Christ.

But let us yet hear a more full witness, which is Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. the place although it be fully answered by me against Heskins lib. 2. cap. 45. yet because Sander maketh so many observations upon it, I will set it down again. Hoc corpus &c. The wise men reverenced this body in the manger: and being men without good religion and barbarous, they worshipped it with fear and much trembling after a long journey taken.

Let us therefore who are the citizens of heaven, at lest follow those barbarous men. For when they saw, the manger and cottage, and not any of those things which thou now seest: they came with most great reverence and quaking. But thou seest that thing, not in the Manger, but in the Altar: not a woman which might hold it in her arms: but the Priest present, and the holy ghost copiously spredde upon the sacrifice which is set forth: Neither lookest thou barely upon the body, as they did: but thou knowest the power of it, and all the order of dispensing things. And thou art ignorant of none of these things, which were done by him, and thou hast been diligently instructed in all things. Let us be stirred up therefore, let us quake, and let us profess openly a greater devotion, then those barbarous men: lest if we come barely, and coldly, we ieoparde our head into a more vehement fire.

Out of this place Sander would have the real presence and adoration of the sacrament proved. But this place proveth neither of both. For he speaketh figuratively, of seeing the body of Christ, of seeing the holy ghost spredde upon the Sacrifice, &c. which cannot be referred to the eyes of the body, but must needs have a spiritual understanding. The body of Christ is so present, as it may be seen, but it cannot be seen but spiritually, therefore it is not present but spiritually. This is sufficient to show that Chrysostom spake not of the popish real presence, therefore not of their manner of adoration. Now let us see what wise arguments Sander can pick out of this place.

First we must note these comparisons: The Altar, the Manger, the Virgin, the Priest, the Wisemen, the Christians, the adoration of the one and the other: but this last comparison is forged, for Chrysostom requireth our imitation of the wise men, in coming to the Sacrament with reverence and trembling, with earnest desire and affection, not in giving honor to the outward creatures, but to him y ^t is seen by faith. Further, Sander chargeth him to say, it is y ^e same body in both places, which Chrysost. saith not, although it be the same body which is received spiritually in the Sacrament, w ^t that which y ^e wise men did worship: yet it followeth not, y ^t the same real body is present upon the altar before it be received, to be there worshipped. Sander urgeth Chrysostom's words, vides in altari, thou seest it on the altar. Lo it is upon the altar, and not only comprehended by faith, but by the mean of the form of bread it is seen. What say you, Sander? is the body of Christ seen? then is he present visibly. It is a mad kind of corporal sight of his body which is through the form of bread. You were wont to tell us, that a substance is said to be seen, where the proper accidents thereof are seen. And are the accidents of bread the signs now of the body of Christ? O new Philosophy and Theology! but I pray you sir, if the body of Christ be not only comprehended by faith, but also seen by mean of the form of bread: by what mean is the holy ghost seen? whom Chrysostom likewise affirmeth to be seen as the body of Christ is. Will you never be ashamed of those impudent shifts, in wresting the holy scriptures, and sayings of the ancient fathers? As for the four reasons that Christian men should rather worship the Sacrament, then the wise men did Christ in the cottage, be in vain. For Chrysostom draweth no example of their worshipping, to worship that which is visibly seen in the Sacrament, or the elements thereof, but of coming with reverence unto the body of Christ, which is really in heaven, whereof we are made partakers after an heavenly and spiritual manner in the Sacraments, not by bringing the body of Christ down unto us, but by our ascending up unto him, as Chrysostom showeth plainly, by that long allegory of the Eagles, which he useth in the 24. Homily. Neither doth Chrysostom say, that as those ungodly barbarous men, did worship his body in the manger, and hands of a woman, so we being godly and civil, must worship it lying on the altar, or in the priests hands, in the form of bread. But he exhorteth by this example, his auditors, to come often, decently, & with dew reverence & preparation, to the participation of the holy mysteries, 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉 in which the same body of Christ (though after another manner) is seen and dispensed.

But Chrysostom saith more plainly, Hom. 28. I will show thee that in the earth, which is worthy of highest honor. Where can he show it (saith Sander) but on the altar, pointing to the host? Yes forsooth, he can show it to the eyes of faith: for to the bodily eyes he can show nothing but bread and wine, which is worthy of small honor. But yet it followeth more plainly, As in the palaces of Kings, not the walls, not the golden roof, but the Kings body f • tting in the seat of majesty, is the worthiest thing of all: so is the body of Christ the worthiest thing in heaven, which is now set forth to the earth, to be seen. What could y ^e greatest Papist in Europ say more, quoth Sander? Verily no Papist that is advised what he saith, will say the body of Christ is set forth on earth to be seen, but only by the eyes of faith: and so the Lord of all things, is shown by preaching, by ministering of the Sacraments, but not to be seen with eyes of the body, but with y ^e eyes of y ^e mind. Wherefore seeing Christ is set forth to be seen on earth, which sight cannot be but by faith, Chrysostom meaneth of a spiritual sight, showing, & manner of presence, and not of a bodily sight, showing, or manner of presence. Neither do we invent any shifts, as Sander saith, to avoid the adoration in question, for it shall never be proved, that the Sacrament was adored in the primitive Church, in such sort as it is worshipped and commanded by the Papists. But beside Chrysostom, we must have a plain authority of Theodoret, who disputing against an Eutychian, that denieth the humanity of Christ, reproveth him by the example of the Sacrament, wherein two things are found: (saith Sander) but Theodoret saith there are two natures and substances, bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ.

Neque enim signa mystica, for the mystical signs after sanctification, depart not out of their nature. For they remain in the former substance, figure and form.

But now hear y ^e shameless gloss of Sander. In substance, because the forms of bread and wine subsist, by the power of God, and have their being now by them selves, as they had it before in the nature of bread and wine. So that in substances is not in substance, but in accidents, whereupon it will follow in Theodorets argument, that Christ hath not now the substance of his humanity, but the substance of accidents thereof. Secondly he saith, The forms remain in their former nature, because they nourish no less, then the substance of bread it self would have done, if it had remained.

And is it the shapes or forms of bread and wine that nourished before, while the substance remained? was it the former nature of the forms, to nourish? O monster of impudency! If the substance and not the shapes did nourish, the shapes now nourishing as this new Philosopher affirmeth, remain not in their former nature, but have taken upon them a new nature, which no forms or shapes being accidents ever had before. But hitherto Sander hath done nothing, but by intolerable impudence, sought to shift of the authority of Theodoret, which is so plain and direct against transubstantiation.

Now followeth the place for adoration, which he citeth in Greek, for more credit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. The mystical signs are understood to be those things, which they are made, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and are believed & reverenced. Sander had rather say, adored as being those things which they are believed to be.

Here can be no less, then real presence and adoration. And yet Theodoret meaneth neither of both in such sort as Sander would have him. The mystical signs are spiritually the body and blood of Christ, so to be believed and so to be esteemed, reverenced, honored, and adored, not by any actual conversion of the elements into the body and blood of Christ, but by the grace of God making the same spiritually, which the signs represent outwardly.

And so shall Theodoret expound himself, Dialogo primo, Qui enim &c. He which called his natural body, wheat and bread, and nameth himself again a vine, even he hath honored the tokens that are seen, with the name of his body and blood: not changing their nature, but adding grace unto the nature. And whereas Sander concludeth upon the place by him cited: Therefore worship is not given to them as to images, which represent a thing absent: It followeth immediately after the words by him cited

Dial. 2 Cenfer ergo imaginē cum exemplari, & videbis similitudinē. Oportet enim figurā esse veritati similē. Compare therefore the image, with the pattern or sampler, and thou shalt see the similitude. For the figure must be like the truth.

Theodoret calleth the same mystical signs, which are reverenced, the image, and the figure, which represent the body of Christ, which is the principal sampler, whereof the Sacrament is an image, and the truth, whereof the Sacrament is a figure. Se you not what real presence he maintaineth? Who so will more at large see Theodoret cited and observed, he may read the 52. and 56. Chapiters of mine answer to the third book of Doct. Heskins.

CAP. VI.

The adoration of the body and blood of Christ is proved by the custom of the Priests and people of the first 600 years.

First he citeth the liturgies of James, Clement, Basil, Chrysostom, all which bear conterfeit names, and yet say nothing to the purpose. They report that the deacon said let us be attent with the fear of God, and with reverence. What is this for adoration? we also charge men to come w ^t fear & reverence, to y ^e communion. Again, y ^e Priest said before y ^e receiving of the communion, Sancta▪ sanctis, Holy things, are for holy men. Sander laboreth to prove, that they spoke of the Sacrament, as though we denied that the Sacramental! bread and wine were holy things, when they are consecrated to be the body and bleud of Christ, to the worthy receivers.

But Chrysostom ad pop. Antioch. Hom. 61. upon the same saith:

Considera, &c. Mark, I pray you, the kingly table is set before the Angels ministering at the table, the king himself is present, and thou standest by idle. Thy garments are foul, and thou carest not. But if they are clean, then adore and receive.

This adoration Sander would refer to the holy things, but he cannot enforce it, we adore and communicate, yet we adore not the Sacrament.

Chrysostom in the same Homilie saith: that we eat him which sitteth above, which is worshipped of Angels, &c. by which it is evident, that the presence of Christ in the mysteries, is after a spiritual manner, not that he is bodily present. As for the elevation, and the things praised with an hymn, that Dionysius speaketh, although they prove no adoration of the Sacrament, yet I will not stand upon them, because it is clear that Dionysius was a writer out of the compass of six hundredth years, that Sander hath bound himself unto, howsoever the Papists impudently would affirm, that he was Saint Paul's scholar, whose writings were not heard of in the Church for six hundred years after Christ. Next Dionysius the counterfeit Areepagite, followeth Basil

de spiritu sancto. Cap 27. Inuocationis verba, &c. The words of invocation used in the showing of the bread of the Eucharistie, and the cup of blessing, which of the Saints have left in writing to us?

In that place in deed Basil defendeth ceremonies received by tradition, which are not contrary to the word of God, among which he nameth the words of invocation, which words Sander will have to be the order of saying Mass, and prayers, and yet after referreth to certain words, which the people answered, when the Priest said, Holy things are for holy men. One is holy (said they) one is the Lord, one Jesus Christ in the glory of GOD the father, with the holy Ghost, Amen.

But these are words of declaration, who is holy, not of invocation. Wherefore the words of invocation were some prayer that was made for the worthy receiving of the mysteries, and not made to the mysteries, as Sander imagineth. And whereas upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he would not only ground showing of the mysteries, ready to be received, but also lifting up of them, it is a simple argument, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doeth not so properly (as he saith) betoken a showing, by lifting up, as to ordain, to institute, to appoint, and so we need not understand any showing, but an appointment, or ordering of the bread and cup to be the Sacrament.

Passing over Maximus and Germanus, two late writers, concerning the showing and elevation of the mysteries used in their time, I come to Eusebius Emissenus,

Hom. 5. in Pasc. Cùm ad reuerendum altare salutari cibo potúq • , &c. When thou comest unto the reverend altar, to be refreshed with the wholesome meat and drink: Look with faith, upon the holy body and blood of thy God, honor it, wonder at it, touche it with thy mind, take it in the hand of thy heart, and especially, receive it with an inward swallowing.

This place being altogether of spiritual beholding, honoring, & receiving, yet is not Sander ashamed to cite it for carnal presence, and ad oration of the Sacrament. But howe I pray you? forsooth, he telleth us where to have it: on the altar. Nay sir, faith respecteth not things that are visible, therefore not the altar, nor that is seen upon it, but him that is in heaven, which is represented by that which is seen corporally.

Now, seeing the beholding must be with faith, and the receiving with the hand of the heart, and inward swallowing: who will grant unto Sander, that the honoring must be with outward reverence, to that which appeareth bread and wine, but with inward and spiritual reverence, dew to Christ which is in heaven?

But Sander hath a quarrel against the English Homilies, for translating altare the communion, and salutari cibo potúq • , spiritual meats. I think the writer meant not to translate, but to give y ^e sense: but I know not what Sander meant in translating this place, for that which Eusebius saith, Cordis manusus • ipe, to give none English at all, but leave it clean out. As for the saying of the receivers, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof, it hath been shown already, howe it was understood of Origen, and may be said of them that never meant to adore the Sacrament.

And whereas Sander saith, none other Lord entereth under the roof of his mouth, beside that bread: I marvel, whether he mean to teache us, that tectum is Latin for the roof of a man's mouth, whereas we have always taken it for the roof of an house. Christ is said to enter under the roof of our house figuratively, when he dwelleth in us by faith spiritually. As for eating under the roof of our mouth, it is a gross imagination unworthy of the majesty of Christ.

The last author is Cyrillus of Jerusalem in Catech. Mystag. 5. who biddeth the communicants, to take the king and the body of Christ in the hollow of the right hand, saying, Amen, and to sanctify their eyes therewith, using all diligence, that no crumb thereof perish or fall away. What needed that precept (saith he) if it were common bread?

Verily, I take it for a mere superstitious precept, although it were given to young novices, newly admitted to the communion: and yet it proveth not the Popish real presence, unless you think a leg or an arm falleth off, if a crumb be lost. What, when a mouse eateth up all in the Pixe? And what can it be but the substance of bread which hath crumbs, that may fall from it?

Cyrillus in the same place saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For whatsoever thou shalt leese, it is manifest, that in it thou hast lost as it were, parte of thine own body.

I think you will not say, that the bread is changed into the bodies of the communicants, that in leesing a crumb, they leese a parte of their bodies. He meaneth therefore a spiritual reverence to be given to the holy mysteries, which was signified in careful keeping of the external figures. Well, after the communion of the body, Cyrillus biddeth the people come to the chalice of Christ's blood, bowing down, and saying in the manner of adoring & worshipping, Amen. If he bad the people come to the chalice of Christ's blood, he was no Papist, & though he bid them come bowing down, & saying in worshipping. Amen: yet you find not that he biddeth them bow down to the chalice, or to adore that which is in it, as you do. We come to the communion with reverent gesture and bowing down, yet we adore not the Sacrament. But if he meant adoring of the Sacràment, why did he not bid them bow down and worship the bread, as well as the cup?

Finally, that Cyrillus acknowledged no transubstantiation, it is plain by his words in the same book: where he showeth y ^t after the ministers of y ^e church are sanctified by the spiritual hymns that were song, they besought their loving God to send his holy spirit upon the things that were set forth, and to make that bread the body of Christ, and that wine the blood of Christ. Then it followeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For whatsoever the holy Ghost hath touched or embraced, that must needs be sanctified and changed. You see Cyrillus meaneth no change of substance, but such as is in all things that the holy Ghost cometh unto. Where it is said in the Acts, the Apostles returned adorantes, worshipping, we may safely understand, that they returned worshipping of Christ, as well as of the Father and the holy Ghost: but here is no like assurance, that the Sacrament is to be worshipped, therefore adorantes is not of necessity or congruity to be referred unto it.

CAP. VII.

Thereall presence of Christ's body & blood under the forms of bread and wine, is proved by the testimonies of the ancient.

The sayings of the doctors, because he hath already alleged in every article & Chapter, he professeth now briefly to show, by what general Chapters a man may be undoubtedly assured of their belief & doctrine. And first, because diverse of them allege the almighty power of God to defend the verity of those words and deeds: I answer, that allegation proveth no real presence. For the almighty power of God is more considered in feeding us with the body and blood of Christ, which is in heaven, then in Popish transubstantiation. Yet Sander misunderstandeth Irenaeus, li. 4. ca. 34. as he misquoteth lib. 5. for lib. 4. How can they be sure, the bread whereon thanks are given to be the body of their Lord, & the cup of his blood, if they say not him to be the son of the maker of the world? In these words Irenaeus reasoneth not of the divine power of Christ, which the heretics granted, but they denied him to be y ^e son of that God, which made y ^e world: therefore, by the institutiō of the Sacrament in bread & wine, which are creatures of the world, Irenaeus proveth, that the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was the maker of the world, & not another just God, as the heretics affirmed. Cyprian in deed in serm. de coen. Dom. allegeth the omnipotency of God for that wonderful conversion of the nature of common bread, to be made the flesh of Christ: but he meaneth not transubstantiation, but an alteration of the use of the creature, to be a mean to feed spiritually with the flesh of Christ, as by the whole discourse of that Sermon it may appear. Hilary, li. 8. de Trin. allegeth y ^e divinity of Christ, to prove the Sacrament to be truly flesh and blood: which we grant, as he affirmeth under a mystery, and after a spiritual manner. Finally, Basil in Reg. bre. q. 172. Ambrose. de ijs qui init. Cap 9. &c. Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 3. Emissenus hom. 5. in Pasc. Cyrillus in John. li. 4. cap. 13. & 14 places often cited & answered, do all use the argument of omnipotency, but not to prove the Popish carnal or real manner of presence, but to prove y ^t Christ doth above the reach of man's understanding, feed us truly with his flesh & blood, and as Damascene saith, by an inscrutable mean (for he had not learned transubstantiatiō, though otherwise he were a corrupt writer, in diverse things) as he doth regenerate us in baptism.

The second general Chapter is, that no man requireth credit to be given to a figurative speech, but the fathers require credit to be given unto it, therefore it is not figurative. I deny the major, for he that requireth not all the figurative speeches in y ^e scripture to be credited, in their true meaning, is an heretic. If these words had been figurative (saith Sander) we should have been warned by the watch men of God to beware of them. Nay, to beware of misunderstanding them, so we are directly by Augustine, De d • ct. Christ. lib. 3. Cap. 16. & by others. And who is so mad to deny these words of the cup, to be figurative? This cup is the new Testament in my blood. Again, there is neither Basil, Epiphanius, Cyrillus, Ambrosius, Chrysostom, Eusebius, or any other that requireth these words to be credited, but they also show, that they are spiritually and mystically to be understanded.

The third general Chapter is, that the fathers affirm the truth of Christ's flesh, and his flesh to be ea • en truly in the Sacrament, therefore his substance is really present in the Sacrament. I deny the argument, for it is the true fl • sh of Christ, whereof we are truly made partakers, yet it followeth not, that the same should be bodily present, but we are fedd therewith, & united thereto after a spiritual manner: the body of Christ remaining locally in heaven, and nowhere else, a • both the Scripture, our creed, and the ancient fathers do tea • h us.

The fourth Chapter general is, that they which name y ^e 〈◊〉 of Christ a figure, a Sacrament, or remembrance, a ••• ne, symbol, token, image, type (for so many terms th • y have▪ although Sander list to rehear • e but y ^e three first) do not exclude the substance of Christ's flesh: but show that it is present under the sign of another thing, after a mys • icall & secrete manner. I answer, although they exclude not • he substance of Christ's flesh, from his supper, yet showing the bread and wine to be signs, tokens, & remembrantes, they exclude the Popish real presence, under the accidents of bread and wine. For signs and the things signified must needs be diverse, yea, opposite as relatives. As when Cyprian saith: the divine substance hath unspeakably infused it self in the visible Sacrament, he meaneth not the substance of Christ's flesh, nor of his godhead, but the grace of God given to the visible Sacrament. D • Coen. Dom. And when Hilary saith: We take the flesh of his body under a mystery, he meaneth not, that the accidents of bread is a mystery, but the whole dispensation of the Sacrament. Likewise, when Cyril of Jerusalem saith: under the figure of bread, the body is given: he meaneth, that bread is so a figure of the body, that as the figure is given outwardly, so the body is received inwardly.

Augustine, de verb. Apost. serm. 2. The body and blood of Christ shall then be life to every man, if that thing which in the Sacrament is visibly received, be in the truth it self eaten spiritually, &c. Behold (saith Sander) there is a thing in the sacrament, & so really it is there, that it is visibly received. What a miracle Sander hath found! but what thing is that which is visibly received, bread and wine, or the body of Christ? It must needs be the body of Christ (saith he) under the form of bread, for nothing else is to be eaten spiritually. And is the body of Christ present invisibly, as all Papists affirm, and yet received visibly? This is strange Logike. But why may not the bread and wine be eaten and drunken spiritually, when they are by faith understood to be the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, to feed the soul as they are corporally digested into the body? be not our souls washed spiritually by means of the water in baptism?

The fifth general head. He that allegeth a cause why the flesh and blood is not seen in the mysteries, presupposeth (although an invisible) yet a most real presence thereof. I answer the allegation of that cause, presupposeth no Popish real presence, but showeth that presence to be spiritual and not corporal: as Ambrose doth plainly in y ^e place which is truncally alleged by Sander, who taketh only the tail thereof.

De sacra. lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sed forte duis, &c. But perhap • thou sayest: I see not the show of blood: But yet it hath a similitude. For as thou hast received the similitude of his death, so thou drinkest the similitude of his precio • s blood. That there may be no horror of raw blood, and yet that the price of our redemption may work.

What argument can be more plain then this, that which we drink is the similitude of his blood, ergo it is not his real blood? As for Theophylact a late writer, I will not stand upon his authority.

The sixth general head. They that acknowledge a change of the substance of bread into Christ's body, must needs mean a real presence of that body. I answer none of the ancient fathers, acknowledged transubstantiation, but a change of use, and not of substance in the bread and wine. The places which he citeth of Justinus, & Cyprian, I have satisfied before often times, namely Justin, against Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 43. and Cyprian lib. 2. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 are the places which he quoteth, and be of antiquitye, in mine answer to Heskins, Gregory Nyssen. in or. Cathechet. in the second book Cap. 51. Eusebius Emiss. or. 5. in. Pasch. ibidem, also Euthymius ibidem. Isychius in Cap. 6. Levite. the same book Cap. 54. Ambrose. de myst. init. lib. 2. Cap. 51.

The seventh general Chapiter. All that affirm the external Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, must needs teach the real presence thereof. I answer, none of the ancient fathers, teach the external Sacrifice, but of thanksgiving and remembrance for the redemption by Christ's death. The places of Dionysius and Eusebius Pamphili, which he noteth, are answered against Heskins lib. 1. Cap. 35. The council of Nice hath been satisfied in this book, lib. 2. Cap. 26.

The eight head, is the adoration lately confuted.

The ninth, that they affirm wicked men to receive y ^e Sacrament, for which he sendeth us to his authorities cited, lib. 2. Ca. 7. & li. 5. Ca. 9. where thou shalt find y ^e confutation, as of the rest so quoted by him.

The tenth, that they teach our bodies to be nourished with Christ's flesh & blood, li. 2. Ca. 5. li. 3. Ca. 15. & 16.

The 11. that they teache us to be naturally united to Christ, lib. 5. Cap. 5.

The 12. that they affirm Christ's body to be on the altar, in the hands, in the mouths, and the blood to be in the cup. lib. 2. Cap. 5.

The 13. that they give it such names, as only may agree to the substance of Christ, &c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coena Domini, answered by me against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 29. And Chrysostom in 1. Cor. Hom. 24. answered in the fourth Chapter of this book.

The 14. that they teache every man to receive the same substance in one measure and equal portion, for which he quoteth lib. 1. Cap. what is the supper, & lib. 4. Cap. 12.

The 15. that they use in showing how it is sanctified, the verbs of creating, making, working, consecrating, representing, &c. for which he quoteth Cyprian de Coen. Do. answered by me against Heskins. lib 2. Cap. 7. Also Jerome in 26. Matth. answered against Heskins, lib. 1. Cap. 18.

The 16. that they spake of it covertly, saying norun • fideles, least the infidels should mock at it, for which he citeth Augustine & Chrysostom, is a feeble argument, to prove the real presence, for other spake openly, even to Infidels, as Justinus & Tertullian.

The 17. that they have applied it to the helping of y ^e souls departed, as being the very self substance that ransaked hell, is false, & not proved out of Aug. lib. Conf. 9. Ca. 13. nor Cyprian, li. 1. Ep. 9. as I have shown against Allen. li. 2. Cap. 9. & Cap. 7.

The 18. that they taught it to be the truth which hath succeeded in place of the old figures, for which he quoteth Augustine de Ciuitate Dei, li. 17. Cap. 20. where no such matter is, but that the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is offered in bread and wine in steed of all the old sacrifices, & delivered to the cōmunicants, by which he meaneth a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and not of propitiation.

The 19. that they used by the known truth thereof, to prove that Christ had flesh & blood, for which he quoteth Irenaeus, lib. 4. Ca. • 4. answered by me often times, & namely contra Hesk. li. 2. Cap. 49. And Theodoret in dialogue, which you shall find contra Hesk. li. 3. ca. 52. & 56.

The 20. that they have far preferred it before baptism, that no crumb might be suffered to fall down: for which he quoteth Cyril. Catech. Myste. 4. answered in the Chapter next before.

The 21. that the catechumeni admitted to hear the preaching, might not sec the Eucharistie, that no man might eat it except he were baptized, and kept the commandment, and yet the catechumeni had a sanctified broad, which was a sign of Christ. For the former parte is cited Dionysins de Eccles. Hier. Cap. 3. for the later, August. lib. 2. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Cap. 26.

To this I answer, that these ceremonies and observations partly frivolous, partly superstitious, are too weak arguments to prove the matter in question. So that in steed of the testimonies of the ancient fathers, we have little beside quotations, and vain collections.

CAP. VIII.

The real presence of Christ's body is proved by the faith of the whole Church of God, in all times and all ages.

To omit that curious question, what shall become of all our fathers that so long have believed th'e real presence: &c. it is a great untruth, that Sander affirmeth Berengarius to have been the first that preached & taught against the real presence. For the opinion of the real presence was not taught before Antichrist was openly shown in the see of Rome in any place, nor immediately after commonly received, but in the seventh or eight hundredth yere, as superstition, idolatry, and false doctrine began to increase, both in the East and West: it began to take strength, but yet not to be fully confirmed, as it appeareth in the writings of Damaseene, the seconde Council of Nice, and other writers since that time. Neither was the error then vnreprooued, for the Council of Ephes. 3. which condemned images, gave a true understanding of the supper. Bertrame, whom Sander affirmeth to be but suspected in his book De corpore & sanguine Domini, which is extant for every man to read, plainly determineth against the Popish real presence and transubstantiation.

And whereas Sander offereth a large scope, as he saith, that we should name one bishop in the whole earth, who before the time of Berengarius, reproved the teachers of the real presence, as heretics: I can name none so conveniently as Aelfricke, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, with all the Saxon bishops in his time, who set forth an Homily to be read on Easter day unto the people, and allowed certain Epistles of the said Aelfricke, in which is contained a plain and manifest denial of that bodily presence, for which we strive, and an approbation of the only spiritual manner of presence, which we teache.

If Sander will cavil, that although they so taught they reproved not the teachers of the real presence as heretics I refer it to the judgment of all indifferent men, how they would have accused any man that obstinately should have maintained a doctrine contrary to their common belief and consent. Howe the fathers of the primitive Church believed, concerning the blessed Sacrament, & namely S. August. (whom Sander half suspecteth, and yet saith he is not against them, because his communion is not forsaken) it hath ben plentifully and often shown, & is not here to be repeated.

But Hilary saith, it is the profession of our Lord, & the faith of the Church, that the Sacrament is truly the flesh and blood of Christ: therefore there is no place left of doubting. Certeinly we doubt not, but to the worthy receiver, the Sacrament is the same which Christ affirmeth it to be, after a spiritual manner: but we are out of doubt, that our Savior Christ retaining the nature of his body, would not make the same insensible, impalpable, incircumscriptible, &c. It is not therefore the presence, nor the real presence rightly understood, but the bodily presence, which we deny, and no man affirmed for six hundred years after Christ, except perhaps Marcus the heretic, that changed the color of y ^e wine by enchantment, that it might be thought that Christ had dropped his blood into his chalice, as Irenaeus testifieth, lib. 1. Cap. 9.

Likewise, we answer to Epiphanius, we believe the words of Christ to be true, which by grace hath given us bread and wine to be his body and blood spiritually, even as the water of baptism to be regeneration, which similitude Epiphanius useth, even as he doth this of the supper, to show that we are truly made according to the image of God, not by nature, but by grace. Epiph. Anch.

But Sander hath a pleasant similitude to show, that the Papists are not gone from the Apostles, and ancient fathers, because a man living in these days, should be unjustly charged with treason, for disobeying of William the Conqueror, or being the son of him that disobeyed William the Conqueror, when he answereth, that he lived not under that king, and all his ancestors in their days were obedient to such kings under whom they lived. A worshipful similitude. But if William the Conqueror made a law, that whosoever committeth these things, or these things, shall be deemed a traitor, and it is proved that thou hast committed some of them, what will the former answer avail thee? it is the doctrine, and not the persons of the Apostles and ancient fathers, from which you are accused to have departed. But which of the successors of the Apostles (saith Sander) sent Berengarius to preach that doctrine, whereof they held the contrary? I answer, so long as Berengarius taught that doctrine, which the Apostles themselves commanded to be taught, he needed no special commission from them y ^t were departed from the Apostles doctrine, to reprove them, for he was sent of God, who opened his eyes to see the truth, and their errors, that sitting in the chairs of the Apostles, taught a doctrine contrary to the faith of the Apostles.

But Sander will at once prove that all citizens of y ^e house of God, through the world, witnessed w ^t one voice, and in one word, that they believed the bodily presence. For the old custom was, at the words of consecration, and at the time of the receiving the Sacrament, which was said to be the body and blood of Christ, to say, Amen: that is, to affirm it was so. And this Sander proveth by many witnesses, which is needless: for we know it as well as he. But this proveth no carnal nor bodily manner of presence, except Sander can prove, that it was told them, this to be the body and blood of Christ, without any figure, really, corporally, present under the only shapes of bread and wine, as they teache now. Yes (saith Sander) a figurative speech soundeth otherwise, then we must think, whereto (Amen). must not be answered What shall we then answer to these words of Christ, This cup is the new testament in my blood? are not these the words of consecration also?

But what was meant by Amen, and what the Sacrament is, S. Augustine teacheth

serm. ad infantes: Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi & membra, mysterium vestrum in men's a positum est: Mysterium Domini accipitis ad quod estis. Amen respond • tis, & respondendo subscribitis. Audis ergo corpus Christi & respondes, Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, vt verum sit Amen tuu • . &c. Therefore if you be the body, receive the Lord's mysteries, whereunto you are. You answer Amen, and by so answering, you subscribe. Be thou a member of the body of Christ, that thy Amen may be true.

These words declare, that not the real presence was aduouched by the word Amen, but the spiritual participation of the mystical body of Christ by the faithful.

But Leo, Ser. 6. de Ieiu. 7. mensis saith,

Sic sacrae, &c, you ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye dout nothing at all, of the truth of the body and blood of Christ, for that thing is taken in the mouth, which is believed in faith. And Amen is in vain answered of them who dispute against that which is received.

In these sayings Sander urgeth, that it is received with the mouth, as though Leo did mean, that whatsoever was believed in faith, was received in the mouth, yet the word is are sumitur, it is received by the mouth, which is not all one with, in the mouth. For the body of Christ may be received by the mouth, as by an instrument that receiveth the visible sacrament thereof, and yet the body is not received into the mouth. But Leo speaketh manifestly, against the Manichees, which denied that Christ had a true body: exhorting Christians not to doubt thereof, for except they believed faithfully, that Christ had a true body, they could not with their mouth receive a sacrament of that body, which they believed not to be, nor truly answer Amen, when they disputed against the truth of that body whereof the visible sacrament was a sign, token, and argument, and so used by Tertullian, against the Marcionites that likewise denied the verity of Christ's body.

Wherefore in this Chapter, Sander proveth nothing less then in the title he promiseth.

CAP. IX.

That no man possibly can be condemned, for believing the body of Christ to be really present in the sacrament of the 〈…〉 ltar.

His title is of no man possibly, but his demonstration is a simple poor man persuaded chanceably so by his teachers upon color of Christ's almighty power, and will pretended in promising, that he will give his flesh and words, in saying; this is my body. As for them that are simply deceived, they stand or fall to God, I will neither judge of their condemnation, nor absolution. But such as obstinately defend, that error, contrary to their own conscience, as a great number of the Papists, which pretend faith, and seek nothing else but the overthrow of faith, and the glory of God, for as much as that error employeth a denial of the truth of Christ's humanity, and consequently the truth of the resurrection of our bodies, which must be made like unto the glorious body of Christ, and inferreth manifest Idolatry in worshipping that for GOD, which is a mere creature: I see not howe they can escape eternal damnation. As for their defense which Sander maketh, is frivolous. First of the almighty power of God, which is to do whatsoever he will, and is agreeable to his glory, and not whatsoever we will imagine. He cannot therefore make his body to be in many places at once, or to be without dimension of quantity, or to be invisible and intangible, because he hath determined of his will to the contrary in five hundredth places of scripture. which testify of the truth of his humanity, like unto his brethren in all points, without sin. Neither doeth it derogate from his omnipotency, that he cannot do contrary to his will, which were against his own glory.

It is no infirmity in God, that he cannot lie, that he cannot sin, that he cannot deny himself, nor do contrary to his will & glory; but an argument of his power, wisdom, and goodness.

And whereas Sander saith, that Christ hath determined his will in saying: The bread which I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for y ^e life of the world: I answer, he hath determined no such will of giving his flesh in the Sacrament by these words, but of giving his flesh to suffer death for the redemption of the world, which is the bread whereof he speaketh so often in that Chapiter to be eaten spiritually by faith, not only in the supper, but in baptism, & without both y ^e sacraments, by faith only, which was eaten of all the faithful before the incarnation of Christ, without the eating of which bread of life, no mortal creature can be partaker of eternal life. Further, where Sander saith: that Christ said, This is my body, and gave his twelve disciples twelve fragments or pieces, whereby he shown, that he made the substance of his body present under y ^e forms of bread in diverse places &c: I answer, he declared no will of multiplying his body in diverse places at one time by such words or fact. For seeing he had so often before testified, y ^e truth of his humanity, in so much y ^t he termed himself usually, the son of man, and afterward offered his body to be touched and handled for trial of y ^e truth of his resurrection: these words were not sufficient, to teach his disciples, y ^t his natural body could at one time be visible and invisible, tangible and intangible, in local situation and not in local situation, to be whole in one place, and whole in many places, to have quantity actually of length breadth, and thickenes, & to have no quantity, actually of length breadth & thickness: these contradictions I say being against nature, reasō, sense, his former doctrine, and the scriptures touching the truth of his natural body, and his argument taken of the senses after his resu • rection, could not be persuaded with only saying, This is my body, for as much as they had heard him say many things in like phrase, where no like understanding could be imagined, and the scripture speaking of the sacraments, useth ordinarily to call them by the names of these things whereof they are sacraments. Wherefore there is no doubt, but the disciples understood these words figuratively, sacramentally, and spiritually. And concerning the fragments and pieces whereof Sander speaketh, he is a shamed to call them fragments or pieces of bread, as Cyrillus doth, of whom he borrowed the phrase, lest he should acknowledge bread to be any part of the Sacrament. But what declaration can he make of the will of Christ, concerning transubstantiation of the bread into his body, which even the schoolmen affirm, cannot be proved out of the scriptures? And seeing Sander in his fond Dialogisme, induceth Christ saying: that one of his works cannot be contrary to another: seeing his ascension, abiding in heaven, and coming from thence to judgment, are contrary to this imagined presence; and those articles are plainly and manifestly set forth to be believed: howe can these only four words, This is my body, which may have another interpretation, agreeable to all the sayings and works of God, make such a declaration of the will of Christ, as thereby the truth of his humanity remaining after it was assumed of the deity and the resurrection of our bodies depending thereupon, the ascension, abiding of Christ in heaven, and his coming from thence to judgment: although in words they be not denied, yet are and must be brought in doubt, question and vncerteintie? The other false brags of this interpretation, universally received and always taught and believed, I omit, with his shameless slanders of Luther's life, and death, whereof the one hath been sufficiently, and many times confuted: the other is so well known, and to so many wise and godly, with whom he lived and among whom he died, that next unto the authority of the scriptures, no one thing more discovereth the falsehood of the Papists, then their impudent slanders and lies, maliciously devised against the true professors of the Gospel.

The seventh Book.

To the Preface.

SAnder having finished the sixth book, supposed to have ended his labor, but then came forth the B. of Salisburies reply unto Doctor Hardings book, whereupon he was moved to answer that article, which concerned the real presence. But because the words of both their books were too large to be inserted in this his volume, he hath chosen the pyth of either (as he affirmeth) with such fidelity, as Master Jewel should find no fault with him. For my part, I was likewise purposed to have omitted the answer of this appendix, partly because Master Jewels defense of the Apology, being set forth after this book of Sander, the chief matters are therein by Master Jewel himself weighed and answered: partly, because Sander, bringeth no new matter in this reply, but either such as he hath brought in the six books before: and partly because his chief and most general answer, is nothing, but a begging of the whole matter in controversy, with an affirming and denying, grounded upon his own authority. By means whereof in this one article, he hath noted iump 218 vntruethes: howe well and iustely, let the readers of his book, and Master Jewels reply, be judges. As for me, I will not examine them all, but only so many as touch the controversy, with any show of argument, saving that in a few of the first, I will give the reader a taste, that he may judge of the rest. And whereas he chargeth the Bishoppe for setting one truth against another, for falsifying of authorities, for misconstruing of their meaning &c: as the matters shall occur, I will not fail to consider them.

CAP. I.

Master Jewel hath not answered Doctor Harding well, touching the words of Christ's supper in this article, Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first six hundredth years, to believe, that Christ's body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament.

To give a taste (as I promised) of Sanders collection of untruths, I will examine a few.

The first untruth is noted to be this: Master Jewel said, Whether Christ's body be corporally in the Sacrament, Harding answereth not one word. Harding had said, The terms really, substantially &c. are sound in the doctors, treating of the true being of Christ's body in the Sacrament, Ergo (saith Sander) Master Jewel said not truly: for he proveth afterward, Christ's body to be in the Sacrament. Here the reason of this untruth is, the whole matter in controversy, whether Harding have proved in deed that which he intended.

The 2. untruth. Jewel saith, in this matter he is able to allege nothing for direct proof. Harding had said, Christian people have ever been so taught, of that kind of presence, which is founded upon Christ's plain words: Ergo saith Sander, he was able to allege somewhat. But what, I pray you? That Christian people were ever so taught: which is false, that this doctrine is grounded upon Christ's words, which is false also. For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article? Harding saith the three Evangelists and Saint Paul: Ergo saith Sander, there is y ^e third untruth: for M. Jewel hath words plainly written &c. But if these words prove the presence according to the article, the controversy should be at an ende.

The 4. untruth is, that M. Jewel saith, Harding upon the words of the institution, foundeth his carnal presence in such gross sort, really, and fleshly in the Sacrament. Sander replieth it is less carnal, gross, and fleshly, to have the substance of Christ's corporal flesh, in a spiritual manner, really present under the form of bread, then to be in his mothers womb, as Marcion, and Apelles counted it, or to make a lie, when he said, take, eat, this &c: As though the granting of Christ's humanity, proved the Popish presence, which is contrary to the truth of his humanity, or that Christ might not say truly, the Sacrament to be his body, except it were after that manner, his body. His presence in spiritual manner, we grant, but we understand spiritual manner, to be otherwise then inuisiblie, for many things may be so present, that they are not seen, and yet be not spiritually, but corporally present.

The fifth untruth is, that M. Jewel saith: Christ useth no leading to that carnal presence.

Sander answereth: The word This, leadeth the Apostles to that understanding, as if I say, this is a Lyon, it will follow under this visible form, that I show, a Lyon is substantially contained, &c. As right as a rams horn. If I show a king or a strong man, I may say truly in some sense, This is a Lyon. For if I show one substance, and affirm another of it, the speech must needs be either false, or figurative.

The sixth untruth, and a forged lie is, that Master Jewel saith, D. Fisher saith, this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words, as Sander reherseth them, are these: No man shall prove by the bare words of the Gospel, that any priest in these days, doth consecrate the true body and blood of Christ. Again. No word is put whereby it may be proved, that in our mass, the very presence of Christ's body and blood is made. Judge indifferently of the words, what lie Jewel hath forged. Although Fisher meant, that by the interpretation of the fathers, and practice of the Church, the understanding of the Gospel is more certainly obtained: then by the bare words of the Gospel. But Fisher hath other words: Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari, quod aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus & sanguinem, atque Christus ipse conficit, cùm nec is • ud in scriptures contineatur: which M. Jewel beginneth to english thus, It cannot therefore be proved by any scripture. Here Sander playeth the schoolmaster, and apposeth him. What cannot be proved M. Jewel? give me the nominative case to the verb non potest, it cannot, saith Sander. What cannot? Wherevpon is grounded the 7. untruth, when Jewel saith: Doct. Fisher saith, the carnal presence cannot be proved neither by these words (this is my body) nor by any other. But I put case Master Jewel would answer your deep demand, in saying, that potest in this place, is a verb impersonall, and therefore he can give it no nominative case at all, but must english it thus, non potest it cannot. If you will ask him, why he saith then the carnal presence cannot be proved, as though presence were the nominative case: he will answer you, he doth not so construe, or translate the Latin, but he inferreth that conclusion, upon Fishers words. No word is put whereby it may be proved, that in our Mass the very presence of Christ's body and blood is made. But your learning, will have the whole speech following to be the nominative. I say, let it so be, if you will needs have it so, yet Master Jewels conclusion is true: That Fisher affirmeth the carnal presence cannot be proved to be made, either by lay man or Priest: ergo it cannot be proved at all. Yet saith Sander, Howe many enormous faults have you committed here, master Jewel? First Harding affirmed these words, This is my body, to teach a real presence: Fisher spake of these words, Make this thing, and not of these words, This is my body. This were an enormous fault, if Fisher had not said, Non potest per vllam scripturam probari, it cannot be proved by any scripture: but seeing he said so, this is an enormous, slanderous, impudent, and foolish lie, and cavil of Sander. Secondly, Harding spake of the real presence, if any sacrament be made at all: Fisher, whether any man had authority to make any Sacrament at all or no. When you can find Hardings if, or condition, you shall be answered to Fishers whether or question. Thirdly Harding spake of Christ's words; Fisher of our doings. If the scripture be not Christ's words, Fisher spake only of our doings. 4 Fisher doubted not but the words made the presence, but he asketh the heretics howe they can prove it by the holy scriptures. Nay syr, he affirmeth precisely, that it cannot be proved by the scripture. These are the four great enormous fault. I trust after this taste, no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders untruths, falsely fathered upon Master Jewel. Wherefore I will go from henceforth only to the matter in controversy. Hitherto you hear not Master Jewels article disproved. Videlicet, that the people were not taught, &c. as in the beginning of the Chapter. The question, being not of the words, but of the meaning, saith Jewel, Christ meant not this to be his body really. Hereto Sander allegeth a place of Hilary: lib. 8. de Trin. to prove, that Christ lacked neither wisdom, nor utterance, to speak plainly of his Sacraments, and mysteries: which is very true, for he spake plainly, sincerely, and truly, although he spake figuratively. Neither did he speak otherwise then he meant, seeing it is his body after a certain manner, as Augustine saith.

But seeing here are three or four persons speaking: M. Jewel, M. Harding, M. Sander, and myself: it shall not be amiss to bring their several speeches in form of a Dialogue for briefenesse, as Sander giveth me example.

Jewel.

Christ was the Rock, but yet not really.

Sand.

S. Paul spake not these words with intent to make any sacrament, or any other thing.

Fulke.

S. Paul spake these words of a Sacrament, made by God in the wilderness.

Sand.

Two diverse natures in those words are named, which cannot be one substance. But this is my body nameth one substance.

Fulke.

One substance is demonstrated, and another named. Moses might have said truly, showing the rock to the people. This is Christ, or else S. Paul could not have said truly, the rock was Christ.

Sand.

It was not any one certain rock, whereof S. Paul spake, for y ^e water flowed out of two Rocks. Either of which did signify Christ, and they both are only one Rock in meaning, and in substance figured: therefore Saint Paul meant only of the spiritual Rock, which is Christ.

Fulke.

Manna, which was the spiritual meat they did eat, rained every day, yet was it but one Christ in signification: therefore S. Paul meant only of the spiritual Manna, which is Christ, and not of the corporal Manna which was a sacrament of Christ: if this reason hold not of the spiritual meat, howe can it hold of the spiritual drink?

Jewel.

Christ gave his disciples (as S. Augustine saith) the figure of his body and blood.

Sand.

He did so: but he gave such a figure, as is also the substance of his body, as himself being a figure of his fathers substance, is also the selfsame substance with his father.

Fulke.

As he gave a figure, he gave not the substance. Christ is the figure of his fathers substance, as he is a person distinct by himself, and not his father. Neither doth Augustine mean, of such an unity in essence, as is between God the father & the son, when he doth plainly devide, sacramentum & rem sacramenti, the Sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacrament: that is the figure, and the thing figured.

Sand.

He gave a true and not a false sign, lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous, not a common figure. lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical, not an artificial figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A divine, not a rhetorical figure. lib. 2. cap 14.

Fulke.

These are answered in their proper places above cited.

Sand.

He gave a figure of the new testament which hath truth, & not which betokeneth a thing absent from it, which August. declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come. &c.

Fulke.

Augustine in this place, and in many other maketh this difference between the sacrament of the Old Testament, and of the new, y ^t theirs were of Christ to come, once of Christ exhibited and already come, but of the real presence he speaketh no word.

Ablata sunt signa promittentia &c. The promising signs are taken away, because the truth that was promised, is exhibited. In this body we are, of this body we are partakers.

Speaking of the body of Christ which was sacrificed once for all, in which we are after a mystical manner included and are also partakers thereof, after a mystical manner, and so were all that ever pleased GOD: not after a corporal manner, such as the Papists imagine: wherefore Augustine saith upon the same Psalm, alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament,

Sursum corda habcamus. Siresurrexistis cum Christo, dicit fidelibus, corpus & sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit &c. Let us have our hearts above. If ye be risen again with Christ, he speaketh to the faithful, he speaketh to them which receive the body and blood of our Lord, if you be risen again with Christ, savor of these things y ^t are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, &c.

Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receive Christ truly, and not as he saith else-where, Sacramento tenus, as far as the sacrament, or outward sign only.

Sand.

He gave a figure, but he spake not a figure.

Fulke.

Augustine affirmeth both proved li. 2. cap. 14.

Sand.

The names of body and blood do usually signify a visible, corruptible & mortal nature, which Augustine knowing, was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth, none otherwise then in the shape of bread: for that respect, he always teacheth that the body of Christ in the sacrament, is the sign and figure of Christ's visible body.

Fulke.

Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but only by way of a similitude showeth, that if children should never learn more of Christ, then that the Sacrament should be shown them and told them, that it is the body of Christ, and also if they should never see the shape of bread but only in the celebration of the sacrament, they would imagine, that Christ had appeared only in that shape: but this is impossible, therefore Augustine could not fear it. And seeing he had no such fear, he had no such respect, as Sander dreameth, as well concerning his fear, as concerning his respect.

Jew.

Tertullian saith: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my body.

Sand.

He meaneth so as I said before of S. Augustine, and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the truth of Christ's body.

Fulk.

Tertullian proveth, that Christ had a true body, because the sacrament was a figure thereof: for a phātasme or a vain thing, can have no figure. Wherefore Sander, and not Master Jewel, reasoneth like a Marcionite, confounding the figure with the thing figured.

Sand.

Tertullian speaking most literally of bread, as it was an old figure of Christ's body, whereof in Jeremiah it was said, Let us put the wood of the cross into his bread, to wit upon his body, saith: Christ then fulfilling the old figures, made bread his body: if he did so, it could not tarie bread any longer.

Fulk.

This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in words and sense. Tertullian asketh.

But why did he call bread his body, and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an heart, not understanding, that this was an ancient figure of the body of Christ, saying by Jeremiah: Against me have they thought a thought, saying: Come, let us cast wood on his bread, that is, the cross on his body. Therefore the lightener of antiquities, sufficiently declared what he would have bread then to have signified, when he calleth bread his body.

These words declare, wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signify his body, in his supper: namely because it had been an ancient figure of his body, in so much that it was called bread. But he made bread his body, therefore it is not his body still. I answer, Tertullian showeth how he made it his body, when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body. Baptism being made regeneration, is still a washing with water. The rock when it was made Christ, remained still a rock. &c.

Jew.

After consecration, saith Saint Ambrose, the body of Christ is signified.

Sand.

S. Ambrose de myst. cap. 〈◊〉 . doth speak of that signification, which is made whiles the priest pronounceth: Hoc est corpus meum, which words he saith, do work in the consecration, that which they signify: therefore they work the body and blood of Christ.

Fulk.

Fie for shame, Sander, when Ambrose saith, Post consecrationem, after consecration, will you say he speaketh of the signification of the words which as spoken in the time of the consecration? the words of Christ indeed do work, as Ambrose saith, and what work they, but that which is added to the elements after consecration? namely a signification of the body of Christ.

Jew.

It is a bondage and death of the soul saith S. Augustine, to take the sign in steed of the things signified.

Sand.

Saint Augustine meaneth of such kind of signs, when either the thing which appeareth to be signified, is not at all true according to the letter, or else, when the thing signified is absent in substance. &c.

Fulk.

Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressly of figurative speeches, when they are understood, as if they were proper: and cap 16. of the same book, giving a rule to know figurative speeches from proper, he exemplifieth, the eating of the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood, to be a figurative speech. Wherefore you see master Jewels article of challenge standeth untouched, for anything brought in this chapter: And that Sander can yield no good cause why master Jewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the words of Christ's supper.

CAP. II.

Sand.

That the supper of Christ is a naked and bare figure according to the doctrine of the Sacramentaries.

Fulk.

Sander will acknowledge nothing in the sacrament, whatsoever we teach, protest, and believe, except we acknowledge his real presence, but a bare figure.

Sand.

S. Hilary, and S. Cyril teach, that the nature of signs or seals is such, as setteth forth y ^• whole form of the kind of thing, printed in them and have no less in them, then those things whence they are sealed.

Fulk.

Such a seal we believe the Lord's supper to be of Christ's death and our redemption.

Jew.

He must mount on high, saith Chrysostom whoso will reach to that body.

San.

Accedere is to come to, & not to reach He spake of coming to the visible table.

Fulk.

He spake of coming to the visible table, so as we might attain to y ^e body of Christ, which is in heaven, & for y ^t cause he said, we must be eagles in this life. Chrys. in 1. Cor. Ho. 24.

Sand.

He saith, Ipsa mensa, The very table is our salvation, & life. And again: This mystery maketh y ^t while • we be in this life, earth may be heaven to us.

Fulk.

As earth is heaven to us, & the table salvation, so is the sacrament the body of Christ.

Jew.

Send up thy faith (saith Augu.) & thou hast taken him.

Sand.

The place is abused. See lib. 2. cap. 29.

Fulk.

And see the answer there.

Jew.

The bread y ^t we receive w ^t our bodily mouths, is an eathly thing, and therefore a figure, as the water in baptism.

Sand.

The water in baptism is no figure, but y ^e figure is y ^e word coming to the water. As the water in baptism is no figure, when y ^e words are absent, so bread could not be a figure any longer, when the words are fully past.

Fulk

Master Jewel speaketh of y ^e water whereunto y ^e word is come, which as it remaineth no sacrament, after the use of baptism, no more doth y ^e bread out of the use of receiving. That consecration consisteth in the only words, This is my body, it is false: For Christ's words are more, Take, eat, &c.

Jew.

The body of Christ is y ^• thing it self, & no figure.

Sand.

The body of Christ under y ^e form of bread, is itself both y ^e thing, & also a figure of y ^• mystical unity of the Church. So S. Hilary teacheth. The natural property by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect unity. See libr. 5. Chap. 5.

Fulk.

The natural property is not the personal substance, or proper nature of Christ. See y ^e answer as above.

Jew.

In respect of the body, we have no regard to the figure, whereunto S. Bernard alluding saith: The sealing ring is nothing worth: it is the inheritance I sought for.

Sand.

What a desperate custom is it for you, to allege always y ^e fathers of the last 900. years, whom you have already condemned?

Fulk.

What a devilish custom is it for you, always to lie and slander?

Sand.

S. Bernard saith, the body and blood it self to be the sign: Vt securi suis &c. That you may be without fear, you have the inuestiture of our Lord's sacrament, his precious body and blood.

Fulk.

You falsify Bernard's words in translation, and pervert his meaning:

Vt securi suis sacramenti dominici corporis & sanguinis preciosi inuestituram habetis. That you may be without fear, you have the inuestitute of the sacrament of the body of our Lord, and of his precious blood.

The sacrament is the inuestiture as the ring, and not the body of Christ. If the body of Christ were the ring of the inuestiture, Bernard would not have said, the ring is nothing worth. Yet the sacrament as a seal putteth us in assurance of the inheritance, and not bate bread, as Sander bableth.

CAP. III.

Sand.

That Christ's body is received by mouth, & not by faith only.

Jew.

The body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and none otherwise.

Sand.

You are the mainteiner of a blasphemous heresy, and affirm the same which the Arians did.

Fulk.

Master Jewel is more free from Arianism, then you from Eutychianisme.

Sand.

Christ said after bread taken, &c. Take, eat, this is my body, but he spake of eating by mouth, and not by faith alone, and the thing eaten to be his own body: therefore his body is not eaten by faith only, but by mouth also.

Fulke.

That which was to be eaten with mouth, was bread in nature, and his body in mystery, which body was to be eaten by faith, and not by mouth, as the bread was to be eaten by mouth and not by faith.

Sander.

All that was eaten by mouth or by faith, at Christ's supper, came from Christ: but all that he is written to have given, came from his hands: therefore either his body was not eaten by faith at all, or his body came then from his own hands. Answer the Gospel, master Jewel, or else blaspheme no more.

Fulke.

I deny your minor. For it is written: The spirit it is, that giveth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. John. 6. Life, remission or sins, participation of his death &c. were given, but not all, nor at all, by his hands, but by his divine spirit.

Sander

The fathers teach, that we eat Christ's body by our mouths, and not dy faith only.

Fulke.

They teach, we eat the Sacrament, which is so called, and which after a certain manner is the body of Christ, but not absolutely.

Sander.

S. Cyprian saith of evil men. Ser. de lap. 5. Plus modo, they sin now more against our Lord, with their hands and mouth, then when they denied our Lord.

Fulke.

They sin against our Lord in receiving the Sacrament unworthily, more then in denying, because denying was of weakness, this other of hypocrisy.

Sander.

Cyprian saith, the sin is invading and doing violence to our Lord's body and blood.

Fulke.

That is to the Sacrament thereof, for our Lord's body is impassible.

Sander.

Chrysostom witnesseth, us to take in our hands, in our mouths, to touch, to eat, to receive into us Christ's flesh: is all this done by faith only?

Fulke.

Chrysostom witnesseth we see, All the people to be made red, with the blood of Christ. Is that otherwise then by faith? Desacerd. lib. 3. He saith Christ i • broken in the Sacrament, which he was not on the cross. Is that done really? in 1. Cor. Hom. 24.

Sander.

Pope Leo writeth thus of the matter, ye ought so to communicate, that ye doubt nothing, &c.

Fulke.

Pope Leo is answered lib. 5. Cap. 8.

Sander.

Cyril against the Arian lib. 10. Cap. 13. showeth us to eat Christ corporally.

Fulke.

You slander Cyril, he saith the virtue of the mystical blessing, maketh Christ to dwell in us corporally, by participation of the flesh of Christ, & not by faith and love only.

Jewel.

Christ's body is meat of the mind, not of the belly, saith S. Cyprian.

Sander.

I find no such words in Cyprian, but whosoever spake them, it will follow, that the meat he speaketh of, is not material bread.

Fulke.

If you find not the words in Cyprian, you may find them in Gregory, who by error of the printer, is called Cyprian, and you may find the sense in Cyprian: we sharpen not our teeth, nor prepare our belly, but with sincere faith, we break the holy bread. You find in ser. de coena Dom. That the body of Christ is not material bread, we agree with you, and ever did.

Jewel.

Believe and thou hast eaten, saith S. Augustine of Christ's blessed body.

Sander.

These words are not offacramental eating, but of spiritual eating.

Fulke.

He saith, vt quid paras dentes &▪ ventrem? to what end doest thou prepare thy teeth and belly? believe and thou hast eaten. Therefore he showeth, that Christ is not received by mouth and belly, but by faith only.

Jewel.

It is better to use the word figure, than the words really, corporally.

Sander.

It is better to use the words body, blood, flesh, which are the words of scripture, than the word Figure, which is used of the fathers only.

Fulk.

Master Jewel compareth not the word figure, with the words of scripture, but with the words really, corporally, used neither in scripture, nor in the fathers.

CAP. IIII.

Sander.

Master Jewel hath not replied well, touching the sixth Chapiter of Saint John, but hath abused as well the Gospel, as diverse authorities of the fathers.

Harding.

The promise of giving the flesh which Christ would give for life of the world, being only performed in the supper, proveth the very same substance to be in the Sacrament of the supper, which was offered upon the cross, for the life of the world.

Jewel.

Master Harding supposeth no man to eat the flesh of Christ, but only in the Sacrament.

Sander.

He denieth not, but that Christ's flesh may be eaten spiritually, both by faith and by baptism, but not really, save only in the supper.

Fulke.

If Christ speak there only of his gift in the supper, then all are void of life eternal that receive not the supper: Except ye eat, &c.

Jewel.

The words be plain and general, unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man, ye shall have no life in you.

Sander

He saith, ye shall not have life in you.

Fulke.

A diversity without a difference.

Sander.

He meaneth of him who having discretion, to prove himself, refuseth to receive the Sacrament of Christ's supper.

Fulke.

This is a gloss of your own discretion, and not the meaning of Christ's words, who denieth life to all them, that are not fed with his flesh and blood.

Jewel.

Seeing Christian children receive not the Sacrament, by Master Hading it will follow, they have no life.

Sander.

It will follow they have not in themselves, the flesh of life, as Cyrillus • aith, in their bodies, but it is an untrue sequel, to say, they have no life at all: for they have spiritual life in baptism.

Fulke.

They could have no life in baptism, if they were not fed with the flesh and blood of Christ, without which, there is no life at all▪ whatsoever it please Sander to gloss.

Jewel.

S. Ambrose saith, Christ giveth this bread to all men daily, and at all times.

Sander.

He may mean of the gift which is in spirit, or which is daily ready in the Sacrament.

Fulke.

He doth mean, that the bread is not given only in the Sacrament, which is not given to all men, nor at all times.

Jewel.

S. Augustine saith: They eat Christ's body not only in the Sacrament, but also in very deed. Behold not only in the Sacrament.

Sander.

S. Augustine speaketh of the mystical body, which is the company of the elect, and the holy Church of God, not of the natural body, which sitteth at the right hand of God.

Fulke.

Augustine saith,

qui ergo est, &c. He then that is in the unity of his body, that is in the couiunction of Christian members (the Sacrament of which body, the faithful communicating are accustomed to receive from the altar) he is to be said truly to eat y ^e body of Christ and to drink the blood of Christ.
De ciui. Dei. li. 21. Cap.

25. In the same Chapiter he apposeth, Sacramento tenus & reuera manducare corpus Christi, to eat the body of Christ as far as the Sacrament, and to eat the body of Christ in very deed. Ergo they that eat the Sacrament only, eat not the body of Christ in very deed. Therefore Christ's gift is not only in the Sacrament.

Jewel.

The fathers of the old law, received the self same body, that is now received of the faithful. Aug. de vtil. p • n. Cap. 1.

Sander.

Augustine saith, the self same spiritual meat, that is Christ by faith, but not the same corporal meat, which is the body of Christ, Tract. 11. in John.

Fulke.

Augustine saith not, that the body of Christ is our corporal meat, but that which answereth in proportion to Manna, as a corporal meat, namely bread and wine. Tract. 26.

Sander.

But Tract. 11. he saith, Quid est Manna? what it Manna? I am, saith Christ, the living bread that came down from heaven.

Fulke.

It followeth immediately, Manna accipiunt fideles, the faithful receive Manna: therefore he meaneth not Manna in this place for the corporal meat, but for the body of Christ, which is spiritual meat.

Sander.

But he saith further:

It is known what God had rained from heaven. And know not the Catechumen what Christians take? Let them blush because they know not. Let them pass over by the red sea. Let them eat Manna, that even as they have believed in the name of Jesus, so Jesus may commit him self to them.

Therefore, Jesus is eaten bodily of us after baptism.

Fulke

I deny the argument, except Manna be Jesus bodily. If Manna be spiritually taken, then Jesus is eaten in the Sacrament as he was in Manna, which Sander confesseth to be only spiritually.

Sander.

But Catechumen might so eat Christ, that is spiritually.

Fulke.

They might not eat Christ in the Sacrament, before they were baptized, and therefore they were ignorant of that mystery.

Jewel.

Every faithful man is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ in baptism, whiles he findeth that unity which is signified by the Sacrament: Therefore, the faithful eat Christ's body otherwise then in the Sacrament. Apud Bedam, 1. Cor. 10.

Sander.

They are not partakers really, but only in the Sacrament of the supper, in which, if the body were not really present, he that is baptized, should not at all be partaker of the Sacrament of Christ's supper, because he is not partaker of bread and wine, but only is made a member of that mystical body, which in the Sacrament is signified.

Fulke.

Beda knew no such distinction of really & spiritually. Neither doeth he say, they are partakers of the Sacrament of the supper, but of the body and blood of Christ in baptism: wherefore I know not whereof Sander dreameth.

Sander.

Augustine saith of heretics and schismatics, de ciuit. Dei, lib. 21. Cap. 25. They are not in that bond of peace which is expressed in that sacrament. The bond of peace expressed, is not the wheaten corns molded in one loaf, but the body of Christ present really under the forms of bread and wine.

Fulke.

Alack poor sophistry. Christ is the bond of peace, but the bond of peace is expressed in the external Sacrament of bread and wine. Although the wheaten corns are not the bond of peace expressed, yet the bond of peace is expressed by the wheaten corns, &c.

Sander.

Look in my 5. book, Cap 5.

Fulke.

Look there for an answer.

CAP. V.

Sander.

Master Jewel hath not replied well, touching the Capernaites.

Harding.

If Christ in S. John had spoken tropically, the Jews and disciples, who were used to figures, would not have said: This is an hard saying.

Jewel.

His reason hangeth thus: The Capernaites understood not Christ: ergo his body is really in the Sacrament.

Sander.

No sir, They understood Christ to speak without parables, & Christ's words pertain to y ^e sacrament, therefore his body is really in the Sacrament. They understood what Christ promised, but they believed it to be either not possible, or not convenient.

Fulke.

The major & minor of your misshapen syllogism, are both false. Augustine in Ps. 33. Exhorruerunt sermonem, &c. They were afraid of his speech, & not understanding, they thought our Lord Jesus Christ had spoken some hard thing, &c.

Sander.

S. Augustine saith, they understood not, because they believed not. in John. Tr. 27.

Fulke.

What though infidelity were y ^e cause of their not understanding, yet he saith, Non intelligēdo scandalizati sunt, By not understanding, they were offended: ergo you said falsely, they understood what he promised. And much less understood they the mean howe it should be performed.

Jewel.

He said, The bread which I will give &c. of spiritual eating: It is the spirit that quickeneth. Understand ye my words spiritually, saith Augustine.

Sander.

See in my third book, Cap. 19. & 20.

Fulke.

See the answer in the same places.

Jewel.

Ye shall not eat, saith S Augustine (with your bodily mouth) this body that you see, &c. I give you a certain Sacrament.

Sander.

Of this place I have spoken at large, lib. 6. Cap. 2. & lib. 3. Cap. 14.

Fulk.

And I have sufficiently answered in y ^e same places.

Sander.

Beside this great dissimulation of S. Augustine's meaning, Master Jewel hath false translations.

Fulke.

Sander heth foolish quarrels: master Jewel giveth the sense faithfully.

Jewel.

We have a spiritual mouth, taste, eyes, ears, as Basil, Leo, Origen, Tertullian say, Christ is to be digested by faith, he is the bread of the mind, not of the belly, to believe in him, that is to eat the living bread: therefore Christ's meaning is spiritual & not real.

Sander.

The fondest kind of reasoning in y ^e world. Christ is eaten both spiritually & bodily.

Fulke.

Al these fathers mean only spiritual eating, excluding all other carnal & grosser manners of eatings.

Sander.

Doth not Tertullian say, The flesh is fed with the body & blood of Christ, to the ende the scule may be made fat of God?

Fulke.

Tertullian speaketh manifestly of the external Sacraments, which have the name of the things signified, as of y ^e signs of baptism, impositiō of hands. &c.

Jewel.

Chrysostom will not suffer this evasion: who saith, to understand carnally, is to understand plainly, as the things be uttered, and to think upon nothing else.

Sander.

We understand not so. For we seeing the form of bread, think upon the body of Christ.

Fulke.

But what did the Capernaites see, whose understanding you defend? And what other thing do you understand, then is uttered in the words?

Jewel.

S. Augustine saith: The saying of Christ is a figure or manner of speech, commanding us to be partakers of Christ's passion.

Sander.

The speech is figurative, not in the substance to be eaten, but in the manner of eating: therefore when Christ had consecrated bread into his body, that speech was not figurative, because the manner of eating was determined under the forms of bread and wine.

Fulk.

Saint Augustine hath stopped that starting hole, expounding y ^e meaning of that figurative speech, not of eating Christ under the form of bread, but of communicating with the passion of Christ, which is represented by the Sacrament, and is performed without the Sacrament. So you fail, both in your substance and manner of eating.

Sander.

Of the whole saying of Augustine, I have entreated more fully, lib. 3. Cap. 14.

Fulke.

And I have answered more fully.

Jewel.

Tertullian saith: The Capernaits thought his speech was hard, and intolerable, as though he had determined to give them his flesh verily, and in deed to be eaten (with their mouths) therein saith Tertullian stood their error.

Sander.

The word ve 〈…〉 doeth not show that they took it to be eaten in substance, but that they thought they should eat it carnally, they thought not of eating under the form of bread.

Fulke.

Not only the word vere, must needs show they thought the substance of his flesh should be eaten verily, but also the argument of Tertullian doeth plainly prove it. For he answereth the objection of them that denied the resurrection of the flesh, because of y ^e Angelike perfection, whereunto the children of the resurrection shall be changed: showing that the perfection shall not be through virtue of the flesh, but through the incorruption which the flesh shall put on. Vsing a similitude of the flesh of Christ, which of itself doeth profit nothing, but by virtue of the spirit, which maketh it able to give life. Wherefore the error of the Capernaits was, in that they imagined the substance of Christ's flesh should be eaten bodily, which Tertullian affirmed should be eaten spiritually, and by faith of his word only. As for the authority of Lyra which followeth, is not worth the contention.

CAP. VI.

Sander.

Master Jewel hath not conferred the supper with the sixth of S. John, as it ought to be.

Jewel.

Christ in S. John speaking of spiritual eating faith, made no mention of any figure: But in his supper he added an outward Sacrament to the same spiritual eating, which the fathers oft call a figure.

Sander.

If spiritual eating by faith be only spoken of, why saith he dabo I will give, when spiritual eating was already given?

Fulke.

Because he would continue his giving, as he had done before, and accomplish his passion, by which his flesh was made meat.

Sander.

The performance doeth expound the promise, especially when he saith: this is, &c.

Fulke.

Here is no new promise, but a continuance of the old, of spiritual eating by faith.

Sander.

The fathers, who call Christ's supper a figure, must needs mean such a figure as was promised.

Fulke.

There was no figure promised in the sixth of John: therefore they mean another thing then was there promised or spoken of.

Jewel.

Master Harding putteth no difference between things pertaining severally to the body and the spirit. Origen. in Cantic.

Sander.

Origen doth speak of them, who reading y ^t book would perhaps apply y ^e names of love there used, carnally.

Fulke.

Prolog. in Cantic. he speaketh of diverse meat of the inward man, and of the outward man. The meat of the outward man, is agreeable to his nature, bodily and earthly. The meat of the inward man, is the bread which came down from heaven, &c.

Sander

You have set forth the book of canticles in the vulgar tongue, contrary to Origen's judgment, to be read of every wanton boy or girl.

Fulke.

As though that book was not in the vulgar tongue in his time, when it was in the Greek tongue. Beside that he saith, the little ones can take no great hurt if they read it, although it be meat for perfect men.

Jewel.

The bread is a figure.

Sander.

Before consecration, S. Ambrose confesseth it to be a figure, but not after the words are said over it.

Fulke.

He confesseth it to be bread before, and to be called the body of Christ after consecration, and that the body of Christ is signified thereby. De myst. Cap. 9. Yea he calleth it a figure of the body & blood of Christ: De Sacram lib. 4 Cap. 5. For it can be no figure of Christ before consecration. Touching Damascene, and Rabanus Maurus, I will not strive, because they are both later wnters then 600. years, although the later be clear against this piece of Popery, the other not clearly for it.

Jewel.

The Sacrament (saith Augustine) is received from the Lord's table: Of some unto life, of some unto destruction: The thing itself whereof it is a Sacrament (y ^t is the body of Christ) is received of every man to life, & of no man unto destructiō, whosoever be partakers of it.

Sander.

Here is a heap of falsehood and lies.

Fulke.

Here is an impudent cavillation.

Sander.

The thing of the Sacrament, is not the body of Christ sitting in heaven, but the company of Saints, and the unity of the body and blood of Christ, not his natural body, but his mystical body the church. Therefore, he saith not simply: The Sacrament, but the Sacrament of this thing, that is to say, of the body and blood of Christ, which five words, M. Jewel hath left out.

Fulke.

These five words help you as much as five eggs, whereof four be rotten. For Augustine by them understandeth the flesh & blood, which Christ promised to give, which if it be not the same body which sitteth in heaven, that body which sitteth in heaven is not given (by his judgment) in the Sacrament. For thus he writeth upon these words of Christ, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting:

Therefore he hath not this life, which eateth not this bread nor drinketh this blood. For temporal life men may have without it, but eternal they cannot have at all. Therefore, he that eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, hath not life in himself: and he that eateth his flesh & drinketh his blood, hath life eternal. And that he saith, everlasting life, answereth to both: it is not so in this meat which we take for sustentation of the life of this body: for he which taketh it not, shall not live: and yet he shall not live which shall take it. For it may be, that by old age or sickness, or some chance, many which shall take it, may die: but in-this meat & drink, that is, in y ^e body and blood of our Lord, it is not so, for both he which taketh it not, hath not life: & he which taketh it, hath life, & y ^t verily eternal. Therefore he will have this meat & drink understood to be y ^e fellowship of his body & his members, which is y ^e holy church in his saints, and faithful ones predestinated & called, & justified, & glorified. Wherof y ^e first is already done, y ^t is predestination, y ^e second & third is both done & is a doing, & shall be done, y ^e is, calling & justification: but y ^e fourth is now in hope, & shall be in deed, y ^t is glorification. The Sacrament of this thing, y ^t is, of y ^e unity of y ^e body & blood of Christ, in some places daily, in some places by certain distance of days, is prepared in y ^e Lord's table, to some unto life, to some unto destruction. But the thing itself, whereof also it is a Sacrament, is to every man unto life, to no man unto destruction, whosoever shall be partaker of it.

You have therefore gained thus much by your cavilling: that neither the flesh and blood of Christ, promised in the sixth of John, nor the thing of the Sacrament is the body of Christ which sitteth in heaven, but the participation of his mystical body, and the fellowship or communion of his body, and the members thereof, which is the assurance of eternal life. But where you say, the Sacrament is that natural body of Christ which sitteth in heaven, you say beside your book: for neither Augustine, nor any ancient father did ever say, that the Sacrament of the body of Christ was the body of Christ, otherwise then after a certain manner of speaking, as Augustine saith.

Sander.

The material bread was prepared by the Baker, ergo the Sacrament prepared in the table, is the body of Christ.

Fulke.

I deny the argument. The Baker prepareth not the Sacrament, although he prepare some parte of y ^e earthly matter that is required unto it, more then the sexton prepareth the sacrament of baptism, by pouring of water into the font.

CAP: VII.

Sander.

Master Jewel hath not disputed well, touching the omnipotency of Christ, in promising the gift of 〈◊〉 flesh.

Harding.

Christ, by showing his divine power, whereby he will ascend into heaven, confoundeth the unbelief of the Capernaites, touching the promised substance of his body.

Jewel.

When ye see Christ ascend whole, ye shall see, that he giveth not his body in such sort, as you imagine. His grace is not wasted by morsels, saith S. Augustine, us •• g Christ's ascension to prove, that there is no su •• gross presence in the Sacrament.

Sander.

He is not present to be wasted, but yet he is really eaten.

Fulke.

S. Augustine's place showeth, that Christ reasoned not of his omnipotency or divine power, but of the absence of his humanity by his ascension, and that the thing which he promiseth to be eaten, is not his natural flesh to be bitten in their mouths, but his grace to be received by faith in their hearts.

Jewel.

This table is the table for Eagles, & not for Iayes, saith Chrysostom.

Sander.

I have answered your jangling of Iayes in my 2. book. Cap. 27.

Fulke.

And I have confuted your babbling of Eagles in the same place.

Jewel.

Saint Jerome saith, Let us go up with the Lord (into heaven) into that great parlor, and receive of him above, the cup of the new testament.

Sander.

He saith not into heaven, but into the great parlor, which is the kingdom of the Church.

Fulke.

But by the great parlor, into which Christ is ascended, he meaneth heaven, where the kingdom of the Church is, and not the earth, where the Church is a stranger: the word heaven is added in Master Jewel for explication, and not as parte of Jerome's words.

Sander.

Chrysostom interpreteth, the parlor for the Church, in Matth. Hom. 38.

Fulke.

Chrysostom was no interpreter of Jerome. In allegories, every man hath his own invention.

Sander.

Christ giveth his body and blood, he is the feastmaker and the feast, he gave that Moses could not give.

Fulke.

All is performed in the great parlor, which is heaven. We must receive of him above the cup of the new testament.

Jewel.

Cyrillus saith: Our Sacrament avoucheth not the eating of a man, leaving the minds of the faithful in ungodly manner to gross or fleshly cogitations.

Sander.

Cyrillus against Nestorius, denieth the Sacrament to be the eating of a bare man, not assumpted into God. I have spoken more, lib. 2. Cap. 25.

Fulke.

Cyrillus denieth the Sacrament to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the eating of a man, and not only the eating of such a man, as Nestorius blasphemed Christ to be, See lib. 2. Cap. 25.

Sander.

Cyril saith, that Christ setteth before us the assumpted flesh of the son man.

Fulke.

Yea, but not in the Sacrament only, but as it was eaten of the fathers. Ad Theod. de rect. fide.

Sander.

He saith moreover, the word is not able to be eaten. What, M. Jewel? not by faith? yes verily, but not by mouth, but according to the dispēsatiō of y ^e vniō.

Fulke.

God the word is not able to be eaten by faith, but in respect of the dispensatiue union. Cyril speaketh not of eating by mouth: for the properties of both natures remain to be seen of us by innumerable reasons, as it followeth immediately. Grant eating of his flesh by mouth, and the property of the human nature is clean overthrown. Your charging of master Jewel with the blasphemies of Nestorius deserveth none answer.

Jewel.

The old fathers, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, acknowledge God's omnipotency in baptism, yet is not Christ really there. Therefore it was vain labor to allege his omnipotency for the real presence.

Sander.

Baptism hath no promise to be the flesh of Christ, therefore you have lost your labor.

Fulke.

Baptism hath promise to wash us in y ^e blood of Christ, to incorporate us into Christ, to make us partakers of his death, burial, & resurrection, Rom. 6. and yet no real presence required, no, not of the holy ghost, otherwise than by effectual grace, working our regeneration and new birth. Yea, Christ doth wash us in baptism. Ep. 5.

CAP. VIII.

Sander.

Whether the Catholics or Sacramentaries expound more improperly or inconueniently, y ^e words belonging to Christ's supper.

Harding.

Because these places report, that Christ gave at his supper his very body, the fathers say, it is really in the Sacrament.

Jewel.

A thing is taken to make proof, which is doubtfll, and the antecedent is unproved.

Sander.

Said not Christ, take, eat, this is my body?

Fulke.

This proveth not, that he gave it in your sense. But where do the fathers say, it is really present in the Sacrament?

Jewel.

The fathers call the Sacrament a figure, a token, a sign, an image, &c. Therefore Christ's words may be taken with a metaphor, trope, or figure.

Sander.

It standeth well together to be a sign & the truth: As Christ is the image of God, & yet God also.

Fulke.

It is impossible to be a sign & the thing signified. Neither is Christ God the Father, of whom he is the image, although he be God.

Jewel.

Even Duns saw, that following the bare letter, we must needs say, y ^t the bread itself is Christ's body.

Sander.

The place is not quoted, therefore it is doubtful: for no man believeth you.

Fulke.

Look in the fourth book upon the sentences. The same affirmeth O • kam, Quodlibet 4. quest. 30. Contrariū illius non habetur ex canone Bibliae. &c. The contrary of that opinion, that bread should remain, is not had out of the canon of the Bible, &c.

Jewel.

So the words stand, This (BREAD) is my body. Sander. where stand they so? in your gospel, but not in ours.

Fulke.

A foolish cavil the word, bread, is added for explicatiō, & by parenthesis shown not to be of y ^e text.

Jewel.

They say (this) meant not bread, but one certain thing in general.

Sander.

I have shown how it is taken, lib. 4. Ca. 4. 5. & 6. Neither doth it signify in general, but that which is contained under the form of bread.

Fulke.

Who could tell, that you would renounce indiuidium vagum? and what is contained but bread, before y ^e words of consecration be all spoken? Jewel. Est, they expound, erit, it shall be. Sander. you delight in falsehood. Christ chose this word est, because it signifieth a most present being of a thing: for God worketh in a moment.

Fulke.

Then the words make not the body of Christ, as all other Papists say. For the words cannot be uttered in a moment.

Jewel.

Erit, they expound the substance of this uncertain general, one thing that shall be changed.

Sander.

These interpretations be false.

Fulke.

They be the interpretations of all Papists except Sander, who also saith, That which was bread before he spake, was his body at the ende of his speech. But what was it in the mean time, while he was in speaking, and said, est it is?

Jewel.

It is given, they expound, it shall be given.

Sander.

We expound it of y ^e present vnblody sacrifice.

Fulke.

Harding, against whom master Jewel writeth, expoundeth it of the passion. Neither can it be both, as you say, but is in deed meant of the passion only, but yet figuratively: seeing Christ said of his blood which is shed, which cannot be understood of your unbloody sacrifice, nor of y ^e bloody sacrifice of Christ, w ^t out a figure.

Jewel.

Do ye this, ye expound, sacrifice ye this.

Sander.

Nay sir, we control your false translation: for Hoc facite is make this my body. Of the making of the sacrificed substance, I have spoken. li. 4. Cap. 13.

Fulke.

Sander controlleth the greatest Papists that ever were before him, in his newfound translation.

Jewel.

This bread, they expound, this y ^t was bread.

Sander.

You should name the place.

Fulke.

A weak answer: the place is 1. Cor. 11.

Jewel.

These verbs: He took, he blessed, he brake, he gave, stand together and rule one case.

Sander.

They stand together in order of writing, but not in order of doing.

Fulke.

They rule a case, according to the order of writing, and not after the order of doing.

Sander.

If the words of consecration were spoken before the breaking, what wonder ye, if the thing y ^t was taken, being changed, we change y ^e construction of verbs?

Fulke.

If the holy ghost have set it down otherwise, you shall have much to do to prove it: if anything be changed, you must give us another accusative case, then panem, and not change the construction of verbs.

Jewel.

He took bread, he blessed it away.

Sand.

He changed it into a better thing.

Fulke.

By blessing? or by saying, This is my body?

Sand.

God bless me from such a man, who scoffeth at the holy mysteries.

Fulke.

Nay, he derideth your bald interpretations.

Jewel.

He brake the Accidents.

Sand.

That is true.

Fulke.

Accidents cannot be broken, except the substance whereof they be accidents, be broken.

Jewel.

He gave his body.

Sand.

We believe it to be a meeter gift, then to give common bread.

Fulke.

Who saith he gave common bread?

Jewel.

Upon these few words of Christ, thus many figures and moe, they have imagined.

Sand.

They be not all the words of Christ, but some are the words of the Evangelists. The words of Christ are all proper, but you have many moe figures and absurdities.

Fulke.

They be all the words of God, and if y ^e words of Christ be all proper, what need so improper expositions of them? But now let us hear no less thē 41. figures and absurdities, maintained by Protestants.

Sand.

First, you join together, this bread.

Fulke.

In translation we do not, but in sense we may, when Saint Paul saith of that which is the body of Christ, this bread.

Sand.

2. You have done it against the Gospel, for Hoc is the newter gender, panis the masculine.

Fulke.

We have not done it against the Epistle, following saint Paul, who I hope, was no enemy of the Gospel.

Sand.

3 You have irerated the same fault, in joining hic to vinum.

Fulke.

We join it none otherwise then Saint Paul joined, This cup.

Sand.

4. You have divided the pronowne hoc from the body and blood, with which substantives only it may agree.

Fulke.

Hoc is an adjective in the newter gender taken substantiuely.

Sand.

5. You expound the pronowne, sometime for bread, sometime for body, as when you make the laying to be words of promise.

Fulke.

It is still bread: for Christ promiseth by that sacrament of bread, to give his body.

Sander.

6. You expound est for significat, when it standeth not between two several natures.

Fulke.

The body of Christ and bread which is demonstrated by hoc, are two several natures.

Sand.

7. You take y ^e same verb est properly referring i • to the body of Christ, which in every man's heart you consecrate by preaching these words, This is my body, as Calvin teacheth.

Fulke.

You bely Calvin, and prate you wot not what. The verb changeth not his signification, for the bread signifieth Christ, which is spiritually given to us.

Sand.

8. Some other will have the verb est to stand properly, and the bread to be a sign.

Fulke.

A fond cavil, all cometh to one reckoning, the bread, is a sign, and the bread signifieth.

Sand.

9. In the words of the cup, in Saint Luke ye supply the verb est, and then cast it out again as superfluous.

Fulke.

A lewd cavil, answered lib. 4. circumstance 26.

Sander.

10 The noun body you take properly, when you take est for significat: and 11. improperly, when est is taken properly.

Fulke.

Childish trifling, where matter is all one. see lib. 4. Circumst. 18.

Sand.

12 You expound y ^e relative quod which, so as it cannot agree with the antecedēt, & the verb following.

Fulke.

Boys play, answered lib. 4. circumst. 18.

Sand.

13 Datur, you expound dabitur.

Fulke.

So doth Harding, and so it must be, as I have shown in this chapter.

Sand.

14 You expound facere to do only, and not to make.

Fulke.

One verb can have but one signification at one time.

Sand.

15 You expound hoc for hic or ita in your homilye, do thus.

Fulke.

Take your action against the Printer.

Sand.

16 In mean commemorationem, you english, in the remembrance of me, which should be, for the remembrance of me.

Fulke.

A knot in a rush.

Sand.

17 When you have expounded est for significat, in the consecration of the blood, hic remaineth without a substantive.

Fulke.

A bable, answered lib. 4. circumst. 23.

Sand.

18 In these words, this cup is the new testament in my blood, you take the noun blood for the sign of blood, and so the new testament established by the figure of blood.

Fulke.

Ye fable, we take it properly, and these words to be a true exposition of these words, This is my blood.

Sand.

19 If you take blood properly in these words, it must also be proper in these, This is my blood.

Fulke.

That followeth not.

Sand.

20 The construction of these words, This cup is shed for you, proveth that which is in the cup to be shed, which you say is wine.

Fulke.

This cavil is answered lib. 4. circumst. 26. & 27.

Sand.

21 In Christ's words: The bread which I will give is my flesh, you expound I have given, and I do give.

Fulke.

Yea, I will give, as I have done, and do.

Sand.

22 In Saint Paul (The bread which we break, is the communicating &c.) you expound signifieth the communicating. As though the Jews figures, did not the same, and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs.

Fulke.

And how can bread be the communicating of the body of Christ, but as the Jews Sacraments were the same? Saint Paul showeth what our sacraments have like with theirs, & the ceremonies of the Gentiles also, & not what difference there is. You are well studied in Saint Paul.

Sand.

23. The cup of blessing, you will have to be a cup of wine, as though y ^e blessing wrought nothing in it.

Fulke.

As though blessing can work nothing but transubstantiation.

Sand.

24. You make Christ give thanks to his father, in beginning the state of the new testament, in better words then deed, for his words are, This is my body, yet you will have him to offer nobody at all to his father in that thanksgiving.

Fulke.

Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the new testament, was at the institution of the supper? Belike baptism pertained not to the state of the new testament. Secondly, howe prove you that, This is my body, are words of thanksgiving or oblation to god?

Sand.

25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadows, and to give to our mouths, less then Moses, for Manna was better then common bread.

Fulke.

Sacraments be no shadows: Neither did Moses give Manna, but God for ought that I know. And it is most convenient, that the signs of the new testament, should be less glorious then of the old, because the doctrine is more clear.

Sand.

26. Ye expound to be guilty of Christ's body and blood for eating, that is to say, for not eating or refusing to eat. For you teach evil men not to eat the body of Christ.

Fulke.

For we expound guilty for eating, to be guilty for eating the Sacrament unworthily, that is in some unreverantly or negligently, in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby.

Sand.

27. You will not have Christ's supper to be an external sacrifice, and to be worse then Jewish and Idolaters altars and tables, who both did sacrifice, and S. Paul compareth Christ's table with theirs.

Fulk

We will have no more sacrifices, but the only and once offered sacrifice of Christ's death for our redemption. The repetition of sacrifice, showeth an imperfection in it, and not a betternes. Saint Paul compareth Christ's table with the altar & table of devils, not in sacrifice, but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars, & tables, which showeth what the communicating of Christ's table is, and overthroweth your carnal presence.

Sand.

28. You expound the showing of Christ's death by a figure, whereby you show him not to be truly dead.

Fulk.

You show it by eating him alive, whereby there is no argument of his death. We show it by preaching joined to the visible element, without which it is lame, dead, and imperfect.

Sand.

29 Ye expound the not making difference, &c. in such sort, that he will not have the body present wherein difference is to be made.

Fulk.

As though difference of the kings person and authority cannot be made but in the kings presence.

Sand.

30 Ye deny our union with Christ's flesh, by corporal participation, which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eve being two in one flesh.

Fulk.

Our corporal participation, is by his incarnation, which is applied unto us by faith, through his spirit uniting us unto him, and testified in the supper.

Sand.

31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels, by howe much he hath a more excellent name, you regard not the name body and blood given to the mysteries, but affirm them to be as they were before &c.

Fulk.

The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name, but because he hath it by inheritance, for else the Angels are named the sons of God, and princes are called God's. You have not sought Christ in the scriptures, but the confirmation of your heresy. Again, we so much regard the name of body and blood given to the mysteries, that we believe them to be the same, that they are called after a spiritual manner, although they have not y ^t name by inheritance but by grace, affirming in the elements, a great alteration from that they were before, not in substance, but in use and effect.

Sand.

32 No promise in the scriptures, can be found made to him, that eateth and drinketh material bread and wine, but to him that receiveth the body and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirm bread to be eaten and wine to be drunken in the supper, beside the word of God.

Fulk.

The promise is made in scripture, to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christ's institution, although not for eating bread and drinking wine only. This reason would prove that water is used without the word of God in baptism, because no promise is made to him that is washed in water, but to him that is washed according to Christ's institution.

Sand.

33 Although David prophesied of eating and adoring, you will grant no meat to be externally adored.

Fulk.

David never prophesied of adoring the sacrament.

Sand.

34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach, that all external idolatry is taken away by the coming of Christ, you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament.

Fulk.

The Prophets teach not that idolatry external, shall be taken away by the coming of Christ, but among true Christians, which do renounce all worshipping of idols.

Sand.

35 Christ came to save & feed the whole man • why deny you the food of life to our bodies?

Fulk.

We affirm, that Christ feedeth body & soul unto eternal life, without the sacrament, and with it, although the food of life be not received at the mouth like other meats, nor swallowed and digested as they are.

Sand.

36 If in the supper we seed on Christ by faith alone, why is it called a supper, more then baptism, where also we must feed on Christ by faith?

Fulke.

Because it is the proper sacrament of our spiritual feeding, like as baptism is of our regeneration, and yet the blood of Christ doeth cleanse our sins in the supper, as we eat the body of Christ in baptism.

Sand.

37 Seeing a figure may be the truth it self, whereof it is a figure, why should you rather detracte this honor from Christ's sacrament, then give the same unto it?

Fulk.

A figure can never be y ^t which it figureth in y ^e same respect: As Christ is the figure of his father, so is he not his father, as he is the figure of his fathers substance, so is he not his fathers substance, but consubstantial with his father; for though he be the same essence, yet he is another person: beside that we may not say the sacraments are all that they may be, but that which God will have them to be. You may demand the like reason of Baptism, why y ^e water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it.

Sand.

38 Christ being equal with his father, made promise of the same flesh which his father had given. Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as real as his father gave him real flesh?

Fulk.

We deny not, but he hath given the same real flesh, although not to be present really in the Sacrament.

Sand.

39 How teach you the words of Christ which are spirit and life, to be notwithstanding figurative, & consequently dead and void of all life and strength?

Fulk.

Howe dare you affirm, any of Christ's words, of which many are figurative, to be dead and void of life and strength? Are not those figurative words, I am the bread that came down from heaven: This cup is the new testament?

Sand.

40 Because the word of God would be meat of man in respect of the body, he took flesh and said, Take eat, &c: yet you make him still to be the meat of the mind, whereby we are excluded from having God corporally in us, through the flesh of Christ.

Fulk.

The word became not flesh, either only or principally to be given in the sacrament: but he could not have been meat, unto man, except he had taken flesh, which flesh he communicateth unto us, through his spirit by faith, to feedboth body and mind, yet not to be received into the body, as bodily meats, but being received of the mind, to nourish the whole man.

Sand.

41 To conclude, whereas ye find flesh, body, blood, joined with eating, drinking, taking, partaking, giving, breaking, distributing, communicating, dijudicating, ye expound all these words figuratively. As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them.

Fulk.

You say untruly of all these words, & whereas you find bread, cup, the fruit of the vine, so often repeated, you understand all figuratinely to maintain your gross understanding, or rather your gainful idolatry, for which you care not to err against grammar, rhetorike Logike, Philosophy, divinity, faith, truth, nature, sense, knowledge, and conscience.

Jew.

If in these words, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, ye follow the letter, it killeth. Origen Hom. 7. in Levite.

Sand.

He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them, doeth follow the spirit and not the letter.

Fulk.

Ye assume for granted, that which is all the controversy. It is not only the letter, to understand the words of eating by piece meal, but of eating his flesh by mouth carnally, as other meats are eaten, although covered from the eyes and taste, as men eat pills wrapped in a wafer cake.

CAP. IX.

Sand.

A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Jewel.

Jew.

Saint Augustine saith, the sacrament of Christ's body, after a certain phrase or manner, or trope or figure of speaking, is the body of Christ.

Sand.

Secundum quēdam modum, is not meant after a certain manner of tropical or figurative speech, but in the sacrament, in the thing itself, in the substance thereof, wherein the likeness is and not in the form.

Fulk.

Saint Augustine's words being set down more at large, then Sander citeth them, who leaveth out the foremost part, let the reader judge, whether he mean of a manner of speech which is figurative and tropical, or of a manner of being which is significative.

Ep. 23. Bonifacio, Nempe saepe ita loquimur &c. Verily, oftentimes we SPEAKE so, that we SAIE Easter drawing near, tomorrow or the next day is the passion of our Lord, whereas he hath suffered so many years past, and that passion was promised but once in all. Verily, on the Sunday it self, we SAIE this day our Lord arose again, notwithstanding there are so many years since he arose. Why, is no man so foolish to reprove us so SPEAKING as if we had lied? but because we CALL these days according to the similitude of the days, in which those things were done, that it is SAIDE, the day it self, which is not the day it self, but in reuolution of time like it: that it is SAIDE to be done on y ^t day, because of the celebration of the sacrament (or mystery) which was not done that day, but long before. Was not Christ once offered in himself, and yet in a sacrament? not only at every solemnity of Easter, but every day he is offered for the people. Neither surely doth he lie, who being demanded, shall answer, that he is offered. For if the sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things, whereof they are sacraments, they were not at all sacraments. Out of this likeness also, for the most part they take their names. Therefore as after a certain manner y ^e sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith.

The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech, that are figurative, and this example of the Lord's supper being brought as one of them: judge whether S. Augustine 〈◊〉 corrupted by master Jewel. Even the Canon law written (as it should seem) before the heresy of carnal presence prevailed, doth so understand this place of

Augustine. de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est. Sicut ergo coelestis panis, &c. Therefore as the heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, (y ^t is, saith the gloss, the heavenly sacrament which truly representeth the flesh of Christ) after his manner, is called the body of Christ (the sense is, saith the gloss, it is called, that is, it fignifieth the body of Christ) whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which being visible; which being palpable was put on the cross, and the very immolation of his flesh which is done by the hands of the priest, is called the passion, death, crucifying of Christ, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery: so the sacrament of faith, which is understood to be baptism, is faith.

Let this exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh, & • ee which is more Catholic.

CAP. X.

Sand.

The signification of aduerbes discussed.

Hard.

By these words really, substantially, &c. The fathers meant only a truth of being and not a mean of being after carnal, or natural wise.

Jew.

All adverbs taken of nownes, signify evermore a quality, and never the substance.

Sand.

An adverb hath his name, because it is joined to the verb, and it doth make plain and fill up the signification thereof, which if it signify a substance, the adverb doth make it to signify the same substance more perfectly. As, Your God is verily the God of God's. This man was verily the son of God.

Fulk.

The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance, but the manner of truth, which is a quality.

Sand.

Christ walked corporally upon the water, that is, in truth of a man's body, but not in any such accustomed manner, as other men's bodies are wont to walk.

Fulk.

Yes verily, he walked upon y ^e water, as other men walked on the dry lande, giving strength to the water to bear him, not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed, who walked likewise on the water.

Sand.

The manner of the walking, did exceed the manner of a mere natural body.

Fulk.

Thē belike Peter had not a mere natural body.

Hard.

When the fathers teach Christ to be in us carnally, corporally, or naturally, (for all these terms, Saint Hilary, and S. Cyril have) then they mean, that Christ is in us, by the true substance of his flesh, and not in such manner, as common flesh is wont to be anywhere.

Jewel.

The fathers mean, that Christ is in us after a corporal, carnal, and natural manner, and not in substance.

Fulke.

Yea after some kind of corporal &c. manner, that is truly, soundly, and not shadowedly, effectually, &c. not after every corporal, carnal, or natural manner.

Sand.

The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in us without the substance of his body and blood.

Fulke.

But the general qualities of a body, of flesh, &c. may be in us, as in their subject, without the proper subject of Christ's body and blood.

Sand.

S. Hilary saith: Christ hath the father in him, according to the spirit naturally. Hath Christ a quality, and not the whole true substance?

Fulk.

The question is not what he hath, but what he hath by force of the adverb naturally, which is not of force to give him the whole substance, but signify y ^t he hath it after the manner of nature, which is truly.

Sand.

Hilary saith, he tarrieth in us naturally.

Fulk.

That is truly, which is some manner of natural being.

Sand.

He saith further: he is in us himself by flesh.

Fulk.

Which he took of us, and doth again give unto us.

Sand.

And again, Naturally, according to the flesh, we live by him, that is to say, we have obtained the nature of his flesh.

Fulk.

I ask no better interpreter then Hilary him self. Whosoever liveth by him, hath obtained the nature of his flesh, which is able to give life, but many live by him which hath not received the supper, therefore Hilary speaketh not of giving the substance of his flesh in the supper, as Sander understandeth, but of giving the nature of his flesh, which is power of life, confirmed to us by the sacraments of his supper and baptism.

CAP. XI.

Sand.

Of the first author of the Sacramentarie heresy.

Hard.

Berengarius began first openly to show the Sacramentarie heresy, touching the verity of Christ's body in the sacrament.

Jew.

Before, master Harding said, the Messalians were the first fathers of this heresy, and so his tales hang not together.

Sand.

The Messalians began privily, by general disgracing the sacrament: Berengarius began openly, by special denying the virtue thereof.

Fulk.

The Messalians spake as openly as Berengarius, and he that utterly denieth the sacrament to be of any virtue, taketh away the special virtue also: wherefore Hardings tales agree not: but that is a small matter.

Jew.

Johannes Scotus and Bertram, maintained the same doctrine before Be •• ngarius.

Sand.

If they barked in corners, at any ceremony, (which is not evident to us) yet they maintained it not. For then they had ben condemned of heresy, & by them you have gained little more then 200. years.

Fulke.

They preached and wrote openly, the one of them dedicating his book to the Emperor, which is extant: the other condemned in the Council of Vercells holden against Berengarius. But while they lived, their doctrine therein was not controlled. Two hundredth years is small gain to us, which count from the beginning, but it is great loss to you, that build upon antiquity, not regarding how it came from the beginning.

Jewel.

It shall be necessary to open Berengarius judgment.

Sand.

It is enough, you are at a stay, and can bring your faith no higher then Johannes Scotus and Berengarius.

Fulke.

We begin at Christ, and bring down the continuance of our faith herein, for 600. years and more, which you cannot impugn.

Jewel.

This is the enforced recantation of Berengarius. I believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, sensibly and in very deed, is touched with the hand of the Priest, and broken and rent, and ground with y ^e teeth of the faithful.

Sand.

You have Englished the words very spitefully, you have added Rent, of your own head. Atteri doth signify to be broken in pieces, or to be wasted, which may be done without grinding.

Fulk.

What great spite is in Rent, more then in Broken? and why should alteri signify to be broken, whē we had the word broken before? and what honesty is it for you to say, y ^e body of Christ may be wasted w ^t the teeth? Finally, when you have dentibus halteri. I marvel why you dare not say, ground, except it be, y ^t you teach y ^e people to swallow the cake, and not to grind it w ^t their teeth.

Jewel.

The very gloss saith: unless you warely understand these words of Berengarius, you will fall into a greater heresy then ever he held any.

Sand.

The gloss telleth you, that all touching breaking, or washing, is to be referred to the forms of bread and wine.

Fulke.

Then the confession of Berengarius was false, that the body is touched, broken, grinded with teeth.

Jewel.

These fathers redress the less error by the greater.

Sand.

They teach him to speak as Chrysostom hath spoken, in John. Hom. 45. Non se &c: Christ permitteth himself not only to be seen, to them that desire, but also to be touched, and to be eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, & all men to be filled with desire of him.

Fulke.

Chrysostom speaketh figuratively, except you will say it is a proper speech, that Christ is seen in the Sacrament. These fathers abhor all figurative speeches in this case, and it is nothing like, that a recantation of a figurative understanding, should be expressed by figurative words.

Jewel.

That M. Harding calleth the catholic faith, is in deed a catholic error.

Sand.

No error can be catholic: because Christ said, Hell gates shall not prevail against the Church, and it is a city built upon an hill.

Fulke.

And yet all nations are made drunk with the fury of the wine of the whore of Babylon's fornication. Wherefore an error may be catholic, although not simply, yet in comparison of the small number that at sometime do embrace the truth.

CAP. XII.

Sand.

Of Christ's glorified body, and the place of S. Jerome expounded.

Hard.

The body which was before the death thereof thrall and frail, is now spiritual.

Jewel.

To what ende allegeth Master Harding the spiritual state of Christ's body? Enriches said it was changed into the very substance of God, which heresy is like Master Hardings, if it be not the same.

Sand.

The defense of the real presence, is directly against that heresy.

Fulke.

To grant the flesh of Christ in word and to deny the essential properties thereof, is to come as near to that heresy as can be.

Sand.

The ancient fathers proved, that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two things, the sign or form of bread, and of the body of Christ, so Christ consisteth of two natures, the one divine, the other human. Wherefore you denying the presence, agree with the Arians, Valentinians, &c.

Fulke.

The ancient fathers, never made the form or accidents of bread, but bread it self, to be the sign, or one part of the sacrament, representing y ^e body of Christ, and the thing signified, they made like to the godheade, whereby they understood not the natural body of Christ, but the effect of his death.

Hard.

S. Jerome showing two ways of understanding Christ's flesh, one spiritual (as it is verily meat) another as it was crucified, declareth the manner of eating it only, to differ from the manner of it being crucified, the substance being all one.

Jewel.

He speaketh neither of the Sacrament, nor of any real presence.

Sand.

He meaneth both.

Fulk.

He can mean neither of both, seeing he distinguisheth that divine and spiritual flesh, which is meat in deed unto eternal life, from that flesh which was crucified, which if it were meat in the same sense, that it was crucified, that is in the natural substance: S. Jerome's distinction should not be of that flesh which &c. and that flesh which &c. but of y ^e effects and affects of y ^e same flesh. Wherefore when he saith, the flesh of Christ is two ways to be understanded, he meaneth of this word, The flesh of Christ, and not of the diverse manners of presence thereof in the sacrament, and on the cross.

Jewel.

S. Jerome saith: of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ, it is lawful to eat, but of y ^t oblatiō which Christ offered upon y ^e altar of the cross, according to it self, it is lawful for no man to eat, that is to say, in gross and fleshly manner. These words show a difference between the sacrifice made in the remembrance of Christ, and y ^e very sacrifice in deed &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 be between a sacrifice once offered and never to be repeated, and the memorial of the same. The same substance that was crucified, is eaten, but not by means of any bodily presence, but by a spiritual kind or manner of eating by faith.

Sand.

What marvelous making can you find in the bread and wine, except they be made the body and blood of Christ?

Fulke.

It is a marvelous thing, that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiver in earth, the communication of the body and blood of Christ sitting in heaven.

Jewel.

If a man take it fleshly, saith Chrysostom in John. Hom. 47, he gaineth nothing.

Sand.

It followeth immediately: What say we then? is not flesh, flesh? He understandeth fleshly, that deviseth a gross and fleshly manner of eating, but not he, y ^t saith the flesh must be eaten, if the manner be divine and spiritual, as in our sacrament.

Fulke.

The manner you teach is gross and carnal, for spiritual eating we confess, which is not only in the sacrament.

Jewel.

It is a figure or form of speech (saith S. Augustine) willing us to be partakers of Christ's passion.

Sand.

You are taken M. Jewel. For seeing you say, we eat Christ in the supper only by faith, and we must be partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest: how saith S. Jerome, we may not eat that oblation which Christ offered on the cross according to it self, may we not be leeue in him? &c.

Fulke.

In the sacrament we eat bread, which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ, we eat not that, which was sacrificed on y ^e cross in the real substance thereof, but by faith applying unto us the fruits and effects of his passion.

Jewel.

S. Jerome calleth the eating of the divine & spiritual flesh of Christ, y ^e remembering y ^t he died for us.

Sander.

Then y ^e oblation itself is eaten of us, which he offered on the cross, according to it self.

Fulke.

What mad man would say, the oblation it self, & the remembrance thereof to be all one?

Jewel.

Clemens Alexandrinus saith: there is a fleshly blood, wherewith we are redeemed, & a spiritual, wherewith we are anointed. And this is to drink the blood of Christ, to be partaker of his immortality: As Christ's blood is not really present to anoint us, so it is not really present to nourish us.

Sander.

Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christ's blood: Jerome of the carnal blood it self.

Fulke.

A monstrous shift, when Jerome distinguisheth in express words, the spiritual and divine blood, by which we are nourished, from the carnal blood that was shed with the spear, by which we are redeemed: Wherefore he speaketh of the effect & fruit as well as Clemens.

Sander.

That S. Jerome speaketh of the Sacrament, it is proved, because he citeth such words out of S. John, as all the fathers, reasons, scriptures, prove to appertain by way of promise to the supper, as I have proved in twenty Chapiters together of my third book.

Fulke.

His citing of words out of the sixth of Saint John, prove no more, then drinking of the blood of Christ, &c. in Clemens that he speaketh of the Sacrament. Your twenty Chapters are answered in as many by me.

Jewel.

Saint Augustine saith: Judas betrayed Christ carnal, thou hast betrayed Christ spiritual. For in thy fury, thou betrayest the holy gospel, to be burned with wicked fire. These words of Clement and Augustine, agreeing so near in sense and phrase with the words of Jerome, may stand for sufficient exposition to the same.

Sander.

Augustine taketh Christ spiritual another way, clean diverse from Clement, or Saint Jerome. The name of spiritual, may be taken as many ways, at spiritus, which is for God, the holy ghost, Christ, Angels, wind, gifts spiritual, the soul, the imagination, breath, anger, or punishment, and many other ways.

Fulke.

So many ways of taking as you know, yet you cannot tell any other, then as Clemens and Jerome take it, for that which hath not the substance, but y ^e grace and effect of Christ.

Sander.

That which you bring out of Athanasius, appertaineth to the Capernaits, and to no man else.

Fulke.

Yes, to as many as err grossly, like the Capernaites, as you Papists doc.

Harding.

The fathers used the words really, substantially, &c. to put away all doubt, of y ^e being of Christ's very body in the holy mysteries.

Jewel.

He diuineth what they mean, before they speak.

Sander.

Nay, because he is sure of their words, he expoundeth their mind.

Fulke.

He is so sure of their words, 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 Chrysostom expounded.

Jewel.

Chrysostom saith in the same homily, If Christ died not, whose sign and token is this sacrifice? therefore he may be also charged w ^t the sacramentarie quarrel.

Sander.

You prove a sign here, but not that y ^e truth is absent from the sign.

Fulke.

The Sacrament is a sign: ergo, not the thing signified, a relatis.

Sander.

The sacrifice of the new testament, is y ^e body of Christ, this is the sacrifice of the new testament, therefore it is the body of Christ.

Fulke.

The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatory of the new Testament, but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spiritual Sacrifice of thanksgiving, as prayer, alms, preaching, unto which is no real presence required. Your syllogism is all of particulars, make the major universal, and the error is soon espied. Every Sacrifice of the new Testament, is the body of Christ.

Sander.

Chrysostom there saith, that Marcion, Valentinus, Manichaeus, (who denied Christ's real flesh and death) are confounded by these mysteries. How can that be, if the true flesh of Christ be not contained in them?

Fulke.

Very well, as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure, to the thing figured. The Sacrament could not be a figure of Christ's body, except Christ had a body in deed. For a void thing, that is a phantasme, can have no figure.

Sander.

Chrysostom saith: it is evident by these mysteries, that Christ is already sacrificed, which cannot be true, if his real flesh be not present, of which point I have spoken in my fifth book, Cap. 1.

Fulke.

And in the same place, I have answered the vanity of your argument.

Jewel.

Master Harding knoweth, that Chrysostom speaketh generally of all other mysteries, for it followeth: Even so in baptism, the water is a thing sensible, the regeneration is a thing spiritual: wherefore, if M. Harding will force his real presence in the one Sacrament, he must likewise force the same in the other.

Sander.

D. Harding brought that place only to show, that the body of Christ is not visibly present.

Fulke.

The place proveth, that the body of Christ is none otherwise present, then regeneration in baptism.

Sander.

In baptism, the grace of regeneration which is given, is contained and given, when the word cometh to the water.

Fulke.

The water is no subject, for the grace of God, & yet Chrysost, saith, not y ^e grace, but regeneratiō itself. Nothing is borne again, but the party baptized, therefore regeneration is not contained in the element or action of baptism.

CAP. XIIII.

Sander.

The difference between baptism and our Lord's supper.

Jewel.

Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force: I will touch, what the fathers think of gods working in baptism. The fathers in the Council of Nice, bid us think, that the water is full of heavenly fire &c. Basil, the kingdom of heaven is set open, Chrysostom, God himself in baptism by his invisible power, holdeth thy head. Ambrose, In the water is the grace of Christ, and the presence of the Trinity. Bernard, Let us be washed in his blood. &c. By force of which words M. Hard. may prove, y ^t the power of God, the heavenly fire, y ^e grace & blood of Christ, is really present in baptism.

Sander.

Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament, except it be signified present, in the words instituted by Christ, which make the Sacrament, or of necessity be inferred upon 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 said, This is my body, so he said, This cup is the new Testament in my blood: yet it followeth not, that the new Testament is really present in the cup, no nor in the blood of Christ, which he shedd for us, but is confirmed by it, and signified by the other.

Sander.

Baptism & the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other.

Fulke.

If they had no differences, they should be all one, yet have they not so many as you make. But in the matter in question, they have like force, to unite us to Christ, and assure us of eternal life, which none can have but they that eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ: or else, what becometh of them that are baptized, and not admitted to the communion?

CAP. XV.

Sander.

M. Jewel replieth not well, touching the authority alleged out of the Nicene Council.

Harding

We behold (saith the Council of Nice) the lamb of God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , put or laid on that holy table, & we receive his precious body and blood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 verily & in deed, which is to say, really.

Jewel.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not found in the Greek, nor in Tunstall, but devised by M. Harding.

Sander.

It is found in the acts of the Council, that are not all printed, but they are extant in diverse Libraries.

Fulke.

You name none, where we should find them, to try your truth and the antiquity of those copies.

Sander.

In many Latin printed books, it is translated s •• m, situated or put.

Fulke.

The question is not what some Latin copies have, but what is the original Greek.

Jewel.

Must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth to be set or placed, needs sound a real presence?

Sander.

Can you have a capon set and placed upon your table, which is not really present?

Fulke.

A fit comparison, between a capon and the lamb of God.

Jewel.

Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith, and yet not really.

Sander.

The lamb of God is not said to be on the holy table, by faith, but to be set or laid there.

Fulke.

How can the Council say, We behold it set there, but by faith?

Jewel.

S. Jerome saith: as often as we enter into the sepulcher, we see our Savior lying in his shroode, yet he lay not there really.

Sander.

But he lay there once really. Howe could the Council say, we behold the lamb of God placed upon the holy table, which neither now, nor at any time was really there?

Fulke.

By faith: as we behold him in his ministers, and in baptism, washing our sins with his blood, where he is not really present, nor ever was, after that manner.

Jewel.

In the Council of Chalcedon, it is demanded, in what scripture lie these two natures of Christ, it is the same word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet they lie not really in the scriptures.

Sander.

The heretic asked for very material and real words.

Fulke.

If the natures may be said figuratively to lie, where the words are found: why may not the lamb of God be said to lie, where the bread and wine, which are signs of him, do lie?

Jewel.

That word signifieth a natural situation of place, & order of parts: such as D. Harding in the next article, saith Christ's body hath not in the sacrament.

Sander.

It hath such situation as the form of bread requireth.

Fulke.

Then the form of bread is situated, & not the body of Christ, or the lamb of God, which you might as well urge to be taken in his proper sense, for a natural lamb, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be laid.

Jewel.

The Council is plain, that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before us.

Sander.

He considereth them basely, who saith, they remain still in earthly substance.

Fulke.

He considereth them not at all, who saith, they are no part of the Sacrament.

Jewel.

It is said, lift up your hearts: so that there is nothing in the action to be considered, but only Christ.

Sander.

I have spoken of this matter at large, lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles, Cap. 27.

Fulke.

And there I have briefly answered.

Jewel.

S. Ambrose saith: it is better seen, that is not seen.

Sander.

Therefore, the body of Christ is better seen, then bread and wine.

Fulke.

Who doubteth of that?

Jewel.

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, & signify another: and therefore the substance of Christ's body, is not his death or passion, or the unity of his Church, which thing under the form of bread it doeth signify, but it is another manner of thing, to wit, a body immortal, impassible, &c.

Fulke.

If S. Augustine had believed y ^e Sacrament to be the immortal body of Christ, he would never have said, In Sacraments, we must not consider what they be, but always what they signify, Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22.

Jewel.

Touching our beholding of Christ in y ^e Sacrament. S. Aug. saith: It worketh such motions in us, as if we saw our Lord himself present upon the cross.

Sander.

S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnity of Easter, which was kept by preaching & showing some image of Christ, & by creeping to the cross.

Fulke.

He speaketh generally of signs; as for images and creeping to the cross, is a moste impudent lie.

Jewel.

This is that Eusebius writeth, that the body might be worshipped by a mystery, & that everlasting sacrifice should live in remembrance, and be present in grace forever: in this spiritual sort, & not fleshly, Christ is laid present upon the altar.

Sander.

You leave out that he saith, the oblation of the redemption should be everlasting, by which words Eusebius declareth, that the Sacrament is such a mystery, as offereth us that continual redemption, which Christ hath purchased for us.

Fulke.

Eusebius declareth no such matter, but a memorial of the everlasting and one only sacrifice, quod semel offerebatur in pretium, which was but once offered for a price or redemption.

Sander.

The same Eusebius saith: the invisible priest turneth the visible creatures with his word, into the substance of his body and blood.

Fulke.

So he saith, that man is by the workmanship of the heavenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptism: wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation, but of a spiritual mutation, such as is in baptism.

Jewel.

S. Augustine saith: you are upon the table, you are in the cup. As the people is laid upon the table, so and none otherwise, the council of Nice saith, the lamb of God is laid upon the table.

Sander.

What, Master Jewel? is the table turned into us, as Eusebius saith, the visible creatures are turned, &c?

Fulke.

Even such a conversion is of the bread into his body, as is of the table and cup into us, namely spiritual. For without some kind of conversion, it were not possible, that we should be on the table, and in the cup.

Sander.

We should not be there, if our head Jesus Christ were not under the form 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 Jesus Christ, and none otherwise.

Jewel.

The Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , verily, by D. Hardings judgment soundeth no less then really: But these two words, truly and fleshly, have sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake unto the Jews, the one doth utterly exclude the other.

Sander.

If you take fleshly, for the substance of flesh, is is all one in speaking, to say truly and fleshly: but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh, it is not all one.

Fulke.

The spiritual sense of eating Christ's flesh truly, in which he spake to the Jews, doth utterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh.

Jewel.

He that eateth most spiritually, eateth most truly: as Christ is the true vine, the true Manna: and we are verily one bread, and the Apostles verily the heavens. And these are the Paschal feasts, wherein verily the lamb is slain.

Sander.

In comparison of bodily eating alone, spiritual eating is more true, and of a better sort: but a thing both eaten in body and spirit, is far more truly eaten both ways, then by one way alone.

Fulke.

Master Jewel hath well proved, that y ^e word Truly, may well 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 anything affirmed of Christ, appertaineth to the true nature of his manhod, which he hath assumpted, it is to be verified of him not only by a metaphor but in very deed, therefore he is man in deed, offered in deed, killed in deed, buried in deed, eaten in deed.

Fulke.

For a man to be eaten in the shape of bread, appertaineth not to y ^e true nature of his manhood, which he hath assumpted, therefore it is not to be verified of him, but only by a metaphor, or figurative speech, by your own rule.

Jewel.

S. Augustine utterly removeth the natural office of the body: what preparest thou thy teeth? believe, and thou hast eaten. Believing in him, is the eating of the bread of life.

Sander.

S. Augustine spake these words, to the faithless Jews of Capernaum: and not to Catholics.

Fulke.

If Jews become faithful, what differ they from Catholics? why should they have another manner of eating Christ, then other Catholics?

Sander.

S. Augustine confesseth us to receive Christ by mouth also, Hominem Iesum Christum, &c. We do receive with a faithful heart and mouth, the man Jesus Christ, giving his flesh unto us to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, although it may seem more horrible, to eat man's flesh then to kill it, and to drink man's blood, then to shed it. Therefore his meaning is not to remove utterly the natural office of the body, as Master Jewel most impudently saith.

Fulk.

He removeth 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 figurative sayings contra adverse. leg. & proph. lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed, comparing our eating of Christ's flesh, with Christ being one flesh with his Church, and immediately after the words aforesaied concluding that figurative sayings must not be contemned.

Sicut duos, &c. Even as we do know Christ and his Church, to be two in one flesh, without any obscenity against the will of these men: Even as we receive with faithful heart and mouth, the mediator of God and man, the man Jesus Christ, &c. Atque in omnibus. And in all the holy scriptures, if anything which is spoken or done figuratively, be expounded according to the rule of sound faith, of any matters or words, which are contained in the holy scriptures, let not that exposition be taken contemptuously.

Sander.

Said he not, for the honor of so great a Sacrament, it pleased the holy ghost, that our Lord's body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meats, and yet is the office of the body removed, and that utterly removed?

Fulke.

Said he not before, it was a figurative speech, to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood? and is it then a great marvel, if the Sacrament be called by the name of y ^e thing whereof it is a Sacrament? For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the body of Christ should be preferred before other things, but whether y ^e Sacrament should be received fasting, or after meat.

The rest of your chat, concerning the council of 8. Cardinals, compared with the conference Wittenburg, I pass over, as containing no argument touching the matters in question.

CAP. XVI.

Sander.

Whether Christ's body dwell really in our 〈◊〉 , by his na 〈…〉 itie.

Jewel.

Four special means there be, by every of which, Christ's body dwelleth in our bodies, not by imagination, but really, substantially, naturally, fleshly, and in deed.

Sander.

You had ben better to have subscribed four times, than to have made an assertion so vain as this.

Fulke.

The assertion is of the phrase, or manner o speaking, against which you cavil • most vainly.

Jewel.

Christ's body by his nativity, whereby he embraceth us, dwelleth in our bodies really, substantially, &c.

Sander.

If you had said by his incarnation, he dwelleth naturally in us, or we in him, that saying might have a true sense: but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies, not only naturally, but also really, &c. it seemeth to me very hard.

Fulke.

His nativity importeth his incarnation. And what mean you by, naturally, but in the truth and real substance of his body, after a natural manner?

Sander.

Christ took not the common general substance of all mankind, but only the whole particular nature of man.

Fulke.

Sander fighteth against his own shadow, for here is no man that saith against him: and so through the whole Chapiter. Whereas Master Jewel defendeth the phrase of speaking, Christ's body dwelleth really, &c. in our bodies, which in some sense is true: Sander answereth it is not true in every sense. And he dwelleth not only by his birth, whereas Master Jewel affirmeth three other ways by which Christ may be said so to dwell in us.

Sander.

One thing I must put you in mind of. You defend that Christ's natural body may not be in many places at once, but you say now, that his body by his nativity, dwelleth really, &c. in our bodies, which dwell in mani places, therefore you are against your own doctrine.

Fulke.

So long as there be no greater contrariety, in Master Jewels doctrine, it is safe enough. This is miserable sophistry, more worthy to be hissed at among boys, • hen to be answered of learned men.

I think there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxford, but he could wind himself out of this fallacia. To dwell in all men by participation of common nature, is one thing, and one whole body, to be whole in ten thousand places, is another thing.

CAP. XVII.

Sander.

Whether Christ's body dwell in our bodies by faith, really or no.

Fulke.

The question should be whether this manner of speech in some sense may not be justified.

Sander.

Master Jewels phrase defendeth John of Kents heresy.

Fulke.

If he had said, the virgins Mary conceived Christ by faith in her heart more happily, then carnally in her womb: In affirming the one, he had not denied y ^e other, and yet he had said nothing but the truth. Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith, before his incarnation? Did they not eat and drink the body & blood of Christ by faith, before his body was conceived in the virgins womb? If these sayings be true, the other phrase according to this sense may be defended.

CAP. XVIII.

Sander.

The contradiction of M. Jewel concerning Christ really dwelling in us by faith, and not really dwelling in us by faith.

Fulke.

If the word, really, may be taken in diverse senses, what contradiction is there? when he saith, Christ dwelleth in us really by faith: the word really, is made opposite to imaginatiuely, figuredly, or phantastically, and signifieth Christ in deed is communicated unto us by the effects 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 natural substance of Christ's flesh, lieth not locally in the substance of our hearts. According to these two significations, what contradiction is there? but that you are disposed to cavil.

CAP. XIX.

Sander.

Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptism, or no.

Fulke.

This saying may be justified in the affirmative, as well as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by y ^e Sacrament of his supper. The diverse understanding of y ^e word really, maketh all the controversy in this matter: M. Jewel taketh it in one sense, M. Sander in another: Not ignorantly mistaking, but willfully & maliciously depraving M. Jewels meaning, which is that Christ in deed, not phantastically or imaginatiuely, but truly after a wonderful manner, hath joined us both body & soul unto himself by baptism.

CAP. XX.

Sander.

Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar, or no.

Fulke.

Even as really as he dwelleth by baptism, & none otherwise.

Sander.

He promiseth to declare y ^t Christ dwelleth four ways in our body really, & when he cometh to the fourth way, he spendeth all his strength to declare y ^t Christ's body is not really dwelling in our bodies.

Fulke.

I pity your beggarly sophistry, grounded upon the diverse taking of the word, really.

CAP. XXI.

Sander.

That Christ's body is proved to be really in the Sacrament, by S. Chrysostom's words.

Harding.

By this Sacrament (saith Chrysostom) Christ reduceth us, as it were into one lump with himself: and that not by faith only, but he maketh us his own body in deed, Re ipsa, which is no other to say, then really.

Jewel.

This place would have stand M. Harding in better steed, if Chrysostom had said: Christ mingleth his body with the Sacrament, and driveth himself & it into one lump.

Sander.

M. Jewel marketh not, that Sacrament to be of it self the real body of Christ under the forms of bread, & wine, therefore to say Christ is mingled with y ^e sacrament, were to say, Christ is mingled with himself.

Fulke.

Sanders best argument, is the whole matter in question: alas poor wretched beggar.

Jewel.

Neither will M. Harding say, that Christ mingleth himself with us, simply, & without figure: whereof it followeth y ^t much less it is so in the Sacrament.

Sander.

He meaneth, that Christ's own body is joined to ours simply without any figure of Rhetoric or Grammar, but not without a mystical figure.

Fulke.

If he mean, y ^t he mingleth himself with 〈◊〉 into one lump, w ^t out all figure of Rhetorik, then without all figure simply, we are one lump with him, as a lump of dough is one. As for our wonderful conjunction w ^t him, it is not that which is the figure, but the mingling into one lump, which are the words of Chrysostom.

Jewel.

It is a hot kind of speech, such as Chrysostom was much delighted with. It is a speech far passing the common sense & course of truth.

Sander.

I thought you would bring it to a figure of speech, but he taught it for a truth, as we shall see anon.

Fulke.

As though an hyperbolical speech, may not be true in any sense, because it is not true in the common sense.

Jewel.

Himself thought it necessary to correct and qualify y ^e rigor of the same speech, 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 useth the term of mingling, without correction.

Fulke.

But in the same sense that he useth it now, with correction.

Sander.

The correction must be referred to y ^e similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough, whereunto he alludeth.

Fulke.

You are welcome home to a figurative speech.

Sander.

What if he use no such correction or qualifying? for, as the edition of Parise doth witness, his Greek words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seipsum miscet nobis, he mingleth himself with us.

Fulke.

If no other edition witness for the Latin translation, let the translator answer for himself.

But his words being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are most aptly translated in Latin subigit seipsum nobiscum, he kneadeth himself with us, which if it be not a figurative speech, I report me to you.

Jewel.

In such phrase Anacletus saith: the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oil.

Sander.

Pope Anacletus, whose Epistle you esteem, as much as your shoe sole, nameth not olcum, oil, but holy chrism.

Fulke.

And is not your chrism, oil? Although the Epistle be counterfeit, and not worth a shoe latchet, yet the phrase is used in it by him whosoever feigned it, and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation.

Jewel.

Alexander saith, the passion of Christ must be mingled w ^t the oblations of the Sacraments.

Sander.

The world goeth hard w ^t his note book, when he flieth to these decretal Epistles, for the proof of anything, especially for Latin phrases.

Fulke.

And why may not your own suborned witnesses be examined, to see if they can depose anything against your own selves, that have set up such knights of the post, as those decretal Epistles are, whom you yourself flout for their Latin phrases, which in deed can scarce keep themselves within the bonds of congruity? Master Jewel hath plentifully displayed their forgery, so that he feareth not any mention of Mass, or chrism, to be found in them.

Jewel.

Nyssenus saith, Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghost.

Sander.

That saying proveth that the grace of the holy ghost, was really in S. Stephen, as Christ's body i • really mingled with our bodies.

Fulke.

It might likewise prove, that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost, for if you take grace for the favor 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 figuratively.

Jewel.

Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderful conjunction which is between Christ and us, even in one person.

Sander.

He confesseth more then we ask, 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 deity, maketh one person with his death, but as he is our head and the Church his body, which is the fullness of him that filleth all in all things. Where Sander confesseth the matter, it is folly to strive for the phrase.

Jewel.

Leo saith: the body of him that is regenerate, is made the flesh of him that was crucified.

Sander.

Pope Leo speaketh of his mystical flesh.

Fulke.

B. Leo speaketh of his natural flesh, but by a spiritual and mystical kind of making, such as our regeneration is.

Jewel.

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 y ^e whole man.

Fulke.

What number is man, Master Doctor, the singular or the plural?

Sander.

He speaketh of a mystical body of diverse members, made up, and perfected into a whole collegiat body. But Chrysostom speaketh of Christ's joining himself to every faithful man.

Fulke.

Sander understandeth not the mystical body of Christ, which compareth it to a collegiat body or civil corporation, with which it hath small similitude. The scripture compareth it to a natural body, receiving life and sense from the head, Christ's joining of himself to everyone of us, maketh us all one body in him.

Jew.

As we are by baptism made Christ's flesh & Christ, in the same sense Chrysostom saith, we are made one lump with Christ, and Christ hath tempered and mingled himself with us.

Sand.

The union is made, not only by faith, but by the thing it self, which is neither water, bread nor wine, nor faith, but only the real substance of Christ's body and blood.

Fulk.

That is not the question, but of the manner of the mingling, whether it be corporal or spiritual.

Sand.

Chrysostom nameth changing, sacrifice, hand, mouth, tongue, seeing, touching, eating, having within us, therefore the manner of mingling must be corporal.

Fulk.

Chrysostom nameth the hand breaking the flesh in pieces, the mouth filled with spiritual fire, the tongue made red with this wonderful blood, as you yourself confess, therefore he speaketh not properly, but figuratively of these instruments of the body which outwardly receive the sacrement of so high & holy a conjunction, the manner of working whereof is wonderful, and not done with hands, mouth, tongue, &c. of men.

Sand.

Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith, that such dwelling is made by the thing it self, & not by faith only.

Fulk.

The word is be come flesh, and dwelled in us, being verily Immanuel, God with us, therefore by the thing it self, and not by faith only, he dwelleth with all the faithful.

Sand.

Prooue that we are made Christ's flesh in baptism by the body of Christ, for else the union of the sacrament will be more real.

Fulk.

By baptism, we are buried with Christ unto death, &c. And what purgeth us in baptism, but the blood of Christ, which purgeth us from all • inns?

San.

Prooue either that we are united to faith it self, and unto baptism it self, or else the union made in this sacrament, will far pass the joining which is in the other.

Fulk.

We are neither united to faith, baptism, or to the Lord's supper, but to Christ, by faith, and by the sacraments.

Sand.

Here we are united to the same body, wherewith we are fed, & which we see, and touch, but there we be not united to the water, wherewith we are washed.

Fulk.

Neither are you here united to any thing, that you see, or touch, except you will be united to bread and wine, or to the accidents of them, which only you hold remain to be seen and touched. In baptism we are united to Christ, whom we put on, with whom we die, are buried, and rise again, being washed with his blood in our souls, as our bodies are washed with clean water.

Sand.

You say that we are made Christ by baptism: but prove that Christ is there delivered in sensible things, to your hands, to your mouth, to your tongue, so that you may have him within you, as it is done in the supper. These phrases you must prove to be verified by faith, and baptism, if you will have as real a joining made by faith or by baptism, as is made by the sacrament of the altar.

Fulk.

Saint Augustine saith, we are made Christ. The phrases that Chrysostom useth, alluding to the external manner of participation of that sacrament, which is by hand, mouth, and tongue, are not necessary to prove, that the union made by the one sacrament, is as real as by the other, when there be phrases of equal force, as the phrases of engraffing putting on, dying, and being buried with him, washed with his blood, &c.

Jew.

As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the body of our Lord, even so the bread of idols, is the partaking of Devils: and if we eat one bread with idolaters, we are made one body with them. Primasius in 1. Cor. 10.

Sand.

You falsify the words of Saint Paul, that which he spake of the substance of bread, you assign to the action of breaking.

Fulke.

You slander him, for although he use the term of breaking of bread, yet be 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 blind. Even so the bread of idols, &c.

Sand.

Primasius took not the name of bread materially, for wheaten bread, but for all kind of meat and drink, which the idolaters used: therefore he meant the bread which we break is no material bread, but a kind of meat which Christ hath prepared for us.

Fulk.

Primasius took bread materially, for wheaten bread, although not only for wheaten bread: Therefore he took the bread which we break for wheaten bread, for what else is broken? Again, the argument is naught, he took bread of idolaters generally for all meats by synecdoche the figure: Therefore he taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kind of meat, which is no bread at all.

But howe answer you Primasius, saying there is the same union between devils or idols, and them that eat their bread, which is between 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.

CAP. XXII.

Sand.

It is proved, that S. Hilary thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament.

Hard.

If the word be verily made flesh, and we receive verily, the word being flesh in our Lord's meat, how he is to be thought not to dwell in us naturally, who both hath taken the nature of our flesh now inseparable to himself, in that he is borne man, and also hath mingled the nature of his own flesh, to the nature of everlastingness, under the sacrament of his flesh, to be received of us in the communion. Hill. de Trin. lib. 8.

Jew.

Master Harding hath not hitherto found, that Christ's body is naturally or corporally in y ^e sacrament.

Sand.

You use many shifts, whereof this is the last, which I will now declare against your dissembling assertion.

Fulk.

Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are fain to seek for him.

Jew.

Against the Arians, Hilarius reasoned thus, Christ is really joined unto y ^e father, as unto us, but Christ is joined to us by nature, therefore Christ is joined to God the father by nature. That Christ is joined to us by nature, he proveth it thus: We are joined to Christ by faith, that is by the nature of one faith, and that is to say, naturally.

Sand.

He falsifieth S. Hilary, for he hath not the word naturally.

Fulk.

You slander him most impudently, for he doth expound the words of Hilary, 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 only to show that faithful men are one among themselves by nature of faith, and not how Christ is joined to us by that faith, which he hath not at all, for he answereth the argument of the Arians grounded upon that place, Act. 4. of the multitude of the believers, there was one soul and one heart.

Fulk.

As though there could be any unity of the believers among themselves, but as they are all joined in one by Christ, & Christ to thē: whō blasphemously Sander affirmeth to have had no faith frō the instant of his incarnation, because his soul was illuminated with the visiō of God, to whose nature it was joined in one person and where clear vision is, there is no faith saith Sander. Not considering, that Christ did voluntarily, empty him self, of all such pretogatiues of his godheade, as might hinder him to have experience of all our infirmities, except sin. And therefore S. Luke testifieth y ^t Jesus incresed in wisdom, and stature, and favor with God & men. But where such clear vision is, as Sand. imagineth, there is no increase of wisdom & gods gifts. And concerning faith: read y ^e 22. Psal. which is a prophecy of Christ, professing his constant faith, in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked, which said, he trusted in God, let him deliver him &c. Yea the Apostle to y ^e Hebrews proveth the humanity of Christ, by this Psal. 16. (where the prophet speaketh in y ^e person of Christ) I will put my trust in him, that is in God: yet Sander saith, he never had faith, but more then faith. As though a greater & a more perfect faith were not faith.

Jewel.

Likewise he saith, we are joined unto Christ by y ^e regeneration of one nature, and again: we are joined to Christ by the nature of one baptism: hereof he concludeth, therefore are we naturally joined to him.

Sand.

S. Hilary hath not the term naturally, of our conjunction unto Christ by baptism, which term D. Harding hath found to appertain to the sacrament.

Fulke.

A simple quarrel, to make such outcries of the term naturally, when Hilary hath terms in all reasonable men's judgments, equivalent, concluding that all Christians are one, not only by will, but also by nature, Because they are clothed with one Christ, by the nature of one baptism. And where I pray you, hath either Harding or you found y ^t Christ's body is in y ^• sacrament naturally, according to M. Jewels challenge? will you never leave this beggarly sophistry? Harding hath found this term to appertain to the sacrament: ergo he hath answered M. Jewels challenge.

Jewel.

Thus it appeareth by S. Hilary, we may have Christ naturally within us, by three other sundry means: and therefore not only (as M. Harding holdeth) by receiving of the sacrament, Like as Christ is naturally corporally, and carnally in us by faith, by regeneration, and by baptism: even so and none otherwise, he is in us, by the sacrament of his body.

Sand.

It is not confessed, that Christ is in us naturally, &c.

Fulke.

But it is proved, that by nature we are one with him: But that Christ should be corporally in our bodies, Hilary saith neither of faith, baptism, nor of the supper.

Sand.

You distinguish regeneration from baptism, as though baptism were not the sacrament that did regenerate.

Fulke.

He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect, as you make it, or the sign from y ^e thing signified, as Hilary meaneth, deserveth no reproof in wisemens judgment.

Sand.

If Christ be none otherwise in us by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptism, why do you make it a several way from the other before named?

Fulke.

Because all these 4. several ways, may notwithstanding agree in one spiritual manner of conjunction, which hath no need of your Popish real presence.

Sand.

The unity of Christ's birth, sufficeth not to prove that Christ is one with us, for that unity of nature, might be thought to pertain no more to the good then to the evil.

Fulke.

There is farther required, the virtue of Christ's spirit, to make that natural unity effectual, to give us eternal life: this uniting virtue is testified by the sacrament.

Sand.

S. Hilary doth us to understand, 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 under a mystery, under a sacrament, which mystery is not the form bread and wine, for that is an open and sensible thing.

Jewel.

That we verily and undoubtedly receive Christ's body in the sacrament, it is neither denied, nor in question.

Sand.

You said before, that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spiritual eating, named in S. John, which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure, & again you said, the bread is a figure, this is confuse and contrary doctrine.

Fulke.

This is wretched wrangling. An outward sacrament which is a figure, added to spiritual eating, taketh not away spiritual eating, but helpeth our faith in spiritual eating.

Sand.

You confessed before, that the sacrament is received with y ^e mou •• , & now you confess that Christ's body is received in the sacrament, therefore Christ's body is received with the mouth.

Fulke.

Your minor should be: the sacrament is Christ's body, which in your sense is not yet confessed, otherwise your syllogism is as good as this, Baptism is received on the outside of the body: the holy ghost is received in baptism: therefore the holyghost is received on the outside of the body.

Sand.

The adverb verily in this place doth signify naturally, really, and substantially. For as the word is made flesh really, so we take really the word being flesh in our Lord's meat. The word was not made flesh only by our faith, but in truth of his substance. Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith only, but in truth of his substance.

Fulk.

The adverb verily in this place, signifieth truly, according to y ^e thing, but not that according to y ^e manner of the thing, in all points we take the flesh of Christ in the Lord's meat, as the same was incarnate in the Virgins womb, but as Hilary himself saith afterward: Vere sub mysterio, We receive the flesh of his body truly, under a mystery, which excludeth naturally, or a natural manner of receiving. We eat Christ as truly, as he was made man, & borne of y ^e Virgin Mary, but not in y ^e same manner: we eat him not sensibly, visibly, palpablie, in length, breadth, and thickness as he was made flesh, but under a mystery or sacrament of his flesh, which is communicated unto us after a spiritual manner. And where you say the word was not made flesh, only by our faith, therefore we take his flesh not by faith only. Neither is the antecedent true, nor the conclusion right. For Christ was not made flesh only by our faith, nor by our faith at all. For our faith was no mean of his incarnation. Where upon I might as rightly conclude: The word was not made flesh by our faith at all: therefore we take not the word being made flesh by faith at all. This argument is as good upon the adverb verily, used by S. Hilary, as that which you make.

Jewel.

It is the bread of the heart, hunger thou within, thirst thou within.

Sand.

As Christ by taking real flesh, is much the better bread of y ^e heart, & hungered within: so it is extreme madness to think that Christ's body given under the form of bread, is therefore less hungered within, or less food of the heart.

Fulke.

If Christ had not taken real flesh, to his divine nature, he could not have been the food of eternal life to us, but there is no such necessity of giving his body in the form of bread, therefore the similitude is unlike.

Jewel.

The thing that is received in spirit, is received in deed.

Sand.

Spiritual receiving is good and true, when it shouldreth not out real receiving.

Fulke.

If real receiving be receiving in deed, spiritual receiving shouldreth not out real receiving.

Jewel.

It is an holy mystery, and an heavenly action forcing our minds up to heaven, and there teaching us to eat the body of Christ, not outwardly by the service of our bodies.

Sand.

Is not vere sumimus, spoken of taking by the service of our bodies?

Fulke.

As concerning the outward sacrament, but not concerning the body of Christ.

Sand.

Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse under a sacrament of his flesh, to be communicated unto us, which you pass over in Hilary, as you were utterly blind. The nature of Christ's flesh is I trow, real, It is communicated unto us under a sacrament which is received by the mouth: therefore the nature of Christ's flesh is received by our bodies, and not by faith alone.

Fulke.

And is the real flesh of Christ mingled with his divinity? what can follow thereof, but confusion of the natures? If that be heretical, then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse, is not his real flesh, nor his real divinity, but the natural property, as he termeth it afterward, of his divine flesh, which is communicated unto us under a sacrament. As for your rotten reason, that whatsoever is received under the sacrament, is received by the mouth, because the sacrament is received with the mouth, is confuted before.

Jewel.

The truth hereof standeth not in any real presence, but as Hilarius saith, in a mystery, which is a sacrament.

Sand.

Hilarius said, we receive verily the flesh of his body under a mystery, you report him to say, in a mystery. Is that no false dealing?

Fulke.

It is all one before God, and all wise and honest men.

Sand.

Well, we receive Christ verily under the sacrament, and that sacrament is by your confession also outward, and commonly called a figure: therefore we verily receive the flesh of Christ's body, under an outward figure, which is the figure of bread, although you mean the substance of bread.

Fulke.

There is both an outward sacrament, and an inward mystery. S. Hilary speaketh of the whole dispe • sation of the sacrament, which is both outward and inward, and not of the sign of bread only, or principally. M. Jewel never confessed that the outward figure of bread, although in some sense it be called a sacrament, yet that it is the whole sacrament.

Jewel.

Our regeneration in Baptism, in a certain bodily sort, teacheth us the purgation of the mind, as Diony sius saith: so it is in the Sacrament of Christ's body.

Sand.

Saint Augustine saith: that must be eaten in the truth it self spiritually, which is visibly taken in the sacrament, and not one thing outwardly taken, and another thing inwardly, as M. Jewel would have it. De verb. Apost. Ser. 2.

Fulk

Are you such a bussarde, that you cannot see the opposition between eating in a Sacrament, and ea • ing in truth visibly and spiritually? I trow the real substance of Christ's body is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament, but the bread which is so called, because it is a sacrament thereof.

Jewel.

Although Christ be not bodily present, yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mystery.

Sand.

The substance of the mystery, must needs be hindered where it is absent.

Fulke.

Christ is not absent, although not bodily present.

Sand.

The substance of the mystery, is the natural substance of Christ under the Sacrament. Therefore Saint Hilary saith: The natural property by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect unity. The natural property is the natural substance, for so S. Hilary useth the word proprietas, very much for the substance and personal 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 have none other literal meaning, but this: The substance of Christ, through the form of bread, wherein unity is figured, is the sacrament of perfect unity.

Fulke.

Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall find another literal sense more agreeable to the mind and purpose of Hilary.

Sand.

S. Hilary saith: There is no place to doubt of the truth of flesh and blood. For now both by the profession of our Lord himself, and • by our faith, it is flesh in deed, and blood in deed. Answer I pray you M. Jewel, what is flesh in deed? what is the nominative case to est? I know none other, beside the word sacramentum &c.

Fulk.

The more foolish Priest you. For caro, the flesh of Christ, & the blood of Christ, of whose truth we ought not to doubt, is by his profession and our faith, flesh in deed, and blood in deed.

Sand.

It is meant by S. Hilary, of an outward thing, for he saith immediately, haec accepta these things taken and drunken, do bring to pass, that both we may be in Christ, and Christ in us.

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 have b ••• the nominative case to est. And what can these things being taken, have relation unto, but to the flesh and blood of Christ, which immediately before was avouched to be flesh and blood truly? which being received, maketh Christ to dwell in us, and us in Christ. The outward thing that is received, bringeth not to pass, that Christ dwelleth in them that receive it. Wherefore the flesh and blood of Christ are received inwardly, & not outwardly.