Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 5 – Chapter 7
CAP. V.
Their reasons are answered, who denye Christ to speake properly Sander.of his last supper in S. Iohn.
The reasons are for the most parte such, as Papistes Fulke.hauehave made, which thinke in their conscience, that this Chapter is not properly to be referred to the Sacramēt: against whome Sander opposeth him selfe, not regarding with what conscience, but with what shewe of wordes, he may maintaine his false position against all men. The argumentes as he numbreth them, are fiue. The first is this: There is no mention of bread and wine in this Chapter: ergo, it speaketh not of the supper. This argument Sander denyeth, because a man may be inuited to a pastie or tarte, although it be not tolde him of what stuffe it shalbe made. Good stuffe I warrant you. Againe, he saith, the matter of a sacrament, is not more necessarie, then the forme of wordes. But Christ saying to Nicodemus: Except a man be borne againe of water, &c. although he name the matter, sheweth not the wordes that make the Sacrament, yet speaketh he there of baptisme, ergo here of ye supper. I denie that he speaketh of baptisme there, otherwise then of the supper here, by comprehending ye seale of assurance vnderunder the promise of the thing it selfe. But this argument Sander alloweth wel: Christ speaketh not of bread nor wine, therfore he meaneth not to bind vsus to receiue vnderunder both kindes, but to receiue that thing which is his flesh and bloud vnderunder what kind soeuer wee receiue it. If this be true, it were well done to take the bread from the people another while, & to serue them of the cup consecrated, for a whole communion. But behold the synceritie of this Academical disputer, alowing this argument to mainteine horrible sacrilege, as though Christ doth not name drinking, almost as often as eating: although he name neither bread nor wine. And if his bloud be drinke in deede, then is it not receiued wt the bread, which is not drunke, but eaten.
The second argument is, Christ speaketh of eating him by faith & therfore saith: this is the worke of God, that you should beleeue in him, whome he hath sent. He that beleeueth in me, shall not hunger: but there be some of you which beleeue not, so yt the eating is beleeuing, & ye not eating is, not beleeuing. To this argument grounded vponupon the authoritie of Scripture, he hath nothing to answere, but by a lewd distinction of eating of Christ, that is of his grace by faith, & eating Christ, that is his whole flesh, bloud, soule & godhead into our bodies, by colour of these words, Manducare ex hoc pane, & manducare hunc panem, which our sauiour Christ manifestly cōfoundeth, & vseth for all one. But that you may see his grosse folly & madnesse, you must remember yt he maketh these words to be the chiefe wordes of promise of his supper; The bread which I wil giuegive, is my flesh, &c. Now ye whol context is this: I am yt liuing bread which came downe frō heauen, if a man eat of this bread, he shall liue for euer, & the bread which I wil giuegive, is my flesh, which I wil giuegive for the life of the world. Marke now what will become of Sanders distinction. To eat of this bread, is to be partaker of grace, by faith, which he confesseth, may be wtout the Sacrament. But that bread wherof he shall eate, is the flesh of Christ, which he will giuegive for the life of the worlde: therefore, to eate the flesh of Christ, is to receiue Christ by grace, although it be without the Sacrament.
The third argument is, Christ was presently ye breade of life, when he spake to the Iewes, saying I am ye bread of life, and my father giueth you the true bread from heauen, therfore Christ was the bread of life, when hee was first incarnat, for euen then hee came downe from heauen. Therfore his wordes cannot be applyed to his last supper, which was not yet instituted. Sander confesseth, that Christ was by his godhead and manhod, the bread of life to be eaten of the Iewes, presently by faith, and not corporally. But he saide also: Worke the meate which the sonne of man will giuegive you, and the bread which I wil giuegive, is my flesh: which gift is fulfilled in his supper. For no reason can be shewed (saith he) why Christ shoulde say, his gift was to come, except it had bene some other gift then to eate him by faith alone, which was lawfull at that instant. To this answere of Sander, I replye: first that he groundeth vponupon a strange translation of his owne, of working the meate, &c. Secondly, of a patching together of twoo textes that stande farre a sunder. Thirdly, the worke of meate spoken of in the former text, whereunto they are exhorted, is expounded of faith by Christ himselfe immediately after: This is the worke of God, that you should beleeue in him whom he hath sent. Fourthly, the gift which Christ saith, in the Future tense he would giuegive, prooueth not that it was yet present, but promiseth it, to them that will receiue it presently. For if a mā hauehave a Ring in his hand; he may truly say to them that stande before him: I will giuegive a Ring to them that shall first come to me. Heere the worde of giuing is in the Future tense, promysing the Ring to him that shall come first for it; yet for all that is the Ring still in his hande. Fifthly, this reason I shewe, why Christ saieth, hee will giuegive his flesh for the life of the worlde, which presently might be eaten, and was eaten, almoste foure thousand yeares before, because his passion, by which it is communicated to the faithfull of all ages, at that time when he spake, was not perfourmed in act, although in effect he was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde.
The fourth argument, which hee consesseth to be of Caietane, is that Christes gifte is not meant of his supper, because it was the gift of himself, to death vponupon the crosse, such as shall redeeme the worlde. Which gift was onelyonly perfourmed vponupon the crosse, and was partaken alwayes of the olde fathers, and may be daily and hourely partaken of vsus, which points do not agree with the gift of the holy Eucharist in Christes supper. This argument (saith Sander) is wittily deuised: no doubt, because it was vsed by Caietane a Papist, but yet it is insufficient for many causes.
The first cause is, because Christ spake of a meate that he would giuegive, euen vntounto our bodies, and not onelyonly vntounto our soules. Howe proueth he, that he spake of such a meate? because he ordeined the miracle of multiplying the fiue loaues to be an introduction vntounto this talk, which loaues were eaten corporally, as also that he shewed himself to be the true bread, that would fulfil and exceede Manna, the figuratiue bread of the Iewes. Two blinde causes, as though he might not take occasion of corporall eating, to speake of spiritual eating, as in the fourth of Iohn, of corporall drinking he taketh occasion to instruct the woman of Samaria, of spiritual drinking, and in the same Chapter, his Apostles of corporall eating, hee teacheth them what spirituall meate was. As for the figure of Manna, of which he speaketh, as of a corporall meate, whereof they that did eate, died: our Sauiour Christ was euen to them that did eate it faithfully, life euerlasting; & Manna was the flesh of Christ vntounto them. But the distinction and contradiction which Christ maketh of Manna and this bread, is that which is necessarie to be betweene the bare signe, and the thing signified, from which to reason, as Sander doeth, Manna was eaten corporally and spiritually, therefore the fleshe of Christ is to be eaten corporally and spiritually; is to ioygne together, things that are to be deuided, which is a poore shift of Sophistrie. Beside that, it is a ridiculous argument, to reason of the similitude of those thinges, wherein the auctor sheweth them to be vnlike. For our Sauiour saith, not as your fathers did eate Manna in the wildernes, of which saying, it is much more probable to reason, your fathers did eate Manna corporally, therfore you shall not eate this breade which I will giuegive corporally. But he obiecteth that Origen saith: as it is alleaged in the decrees, De Cons. Dist. 2. C. De hac. No man eateth properly the flesh of Christe as it was crucified. Therefore Christ speaketh not of his death. Nay rather therefore no man eateth Christe corporally, for hee was crucified corporally. But Sander will hauehave vsus to marke, that Saint Hierom distincteth the flesh of Christ, whereof he speaketh in Saint Iohn▪ from the respect which the same flesh hath, being crucified. in Ep. ad Eph. Chap. 1. Saint Ierom saith, the flesh of Christ is two wayes to be considered. that spirituall and diuine fleshe, whereof he speaketh, when he sayth, My flesh is meate in deede, &c. &, except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. and that flesh which was crucified. This distinction is of the maner of receiuing the one, which is onelyonly spiritually, and of the maner of handling the other, which was corporally, or it is that distinction which is betweene the effect and the cause. Such difference is by Ierom, betweene Christ crucified, and Christs bodie eaten and drunken, which Sander would hauehave to be all one in substance and differ onelyonly in eating.
The second reason, that Christ speaketh of his supper, as well as of his death, is, that the Greeke text mentioneth two giftes: The bread that I will giuegive, is my fleshe, which I wil giuegive for the life of the world. Here (saith he) is, I wil giuegive, twise: ergo two gifts, and then he defendeth the Greeke text to be true, although the Latine hauehave, I wil giuegive but once. You see the cunning of the man, that can make them both serue his purpose. But it is Popish Logike, to conclude two giftes of saying twise, I will giuegive, as in this example: The lande which I will giuegive you, is the maner of Dale, which I wil giuegive to you and to your heires. Here is, I will giuegive twise: therefore two gifts by Master Doctor Sanders Logike. O wonderfull learning of Popish Doctors!
The third reason is, that Christ speaking of the meat, saith, the sonne of man dabit vobis, will giuegive to you, and not only for you. But his death was giuen more properly for vsus, then to vsus. For it was paied to God for our debtes, but was not properly giuen to vsus, for then a sacrifice should be made of Christ to vsus, and consequently God the father robbed of his glorie. What say you Sander? Can nothing be said properly to be giuen vsus, but that which is sacrificed vntounto vsus? So God loued the world that he gaue his onelyonly begotten sonne, that eueryevery one which beleeueth in him, should not perish, but hauehave life euerlasting. Iohn. 3. And Esai saith, The sonne is giuen to vsus. The spirit of God is giuen to vsus, &c. is there no gift but by way of sacrifice? are you not ashamed of such senseles shiftes? Christ in his death was giuen in sacrifice to his father for vsus, and his father being reconciled to vsus, by that sacrifice, giueth him to vsus, and Christ also giueth himselfe for vsus, because all the fruite of his death, and sacrifice is referred to our saluation. The fourth reason is, that Christ, naming breade, meate, foode, Manna, &c. promiseth an eatable thing, which is his flesh in a banket, the Iewes vnderstoode his flesh really, not erring in vnderstanding, but in faith: for Christ cōfirmeth their vnderstanding with an oth, sayth: verily, verily, except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. ergo, their sense which reterre the gift onelyonly to his death, is not sufficient, but it must be meant also of the last supper. This argument followeth not: for although the names of bread, food, flesh, &c. proue that Christes flesh is eatable, yet it proueth not, that it is eatable only in the supper. Secondly, that the Iewes erred only in faith, it is false, for they erred also in vnderstanding, taking the eating of Christes flesh to be perfourmed carnally, which he ment only spiritually. His oth confirmeth not their vnderstā ding, but his owne promise of giuing his flesh for ye life of the world, which except they did eat spiritually, they could hauehave no life in them. But whereas it is obiected, yt Christ speaketh of that gift, which was common to the whole world, euen to ye Patriarkes & Prophets, & therefore it is a spirituall gift, for else Dauid & Abrahā could not hauehave partaken it: he answereth, yt Christ doth not pro mise any one meat vntounto the whole world, but his flesh to be eaten, which is giuen for the whole world. I reply: ye words are plaine, the bread which I will giuegive, is my flesh, which I will giuegive for the life of the world, & not only for the Iewes. Neither doth Christ in his supper, giuegive a far better meat, than he gaue to Moyses & Elias, for he gaue euen to thē, his flesh & bloud, to be their spiritual food vntounto eternal life: witnesse the Apostle to the 1. Cor. 10. that all our fathers did eat & drink the same spiritual meat, that we do, and that their meat & drinke was Christ. Concerning yt dayly we may eat that bread which Christ promiseth, he answereth, the Sacrament is left to be our daily & supersubstantial bread, either because we may receiue it daily if we wil, or because it tarieth alwayes with vsus by some spirituall effect.
To this I answere, that all men cannot receiue it daily, and some men not at all, which yet must hauehave spirituall foode to feede them vntounto euerlasting life: therefore, this breade may be eaten without the Sacrament.
The last argument that he woulde seeme to answere, is this: Christ in S. Iohn, speaketh of that eating, which maketh vsus tarie in him, & him in vsus, therefore not of Sacramental eating: for Christ tarieth not in all that eate him in the Sacrament. He answereth, the fault is not in ye Sacrament, but in them yt abuse the gift of God to their own hurt. As though our Sauiour Christ did speak only of ye power of his flesh, being eaten, & not of ye effect. The flesh of Christ being eaten, maketh vsus one wt him, & him But Augustine is cited, contr. Crescon. gram. lib. 1. Cap. …. Quid de ipso corpore, &. what say we concerning the very body and bloud of our Lorde, the only sacrifice for our saluation? Although our Lord himselfe saith: Except a man doe eate my flesh, and drinke my bloud, he shall not hauehave life in him, doth not the Apostle teach, that the selfe same thing is made hurtfull to them that vse it euill? For he saith: whosoeuer shall eate the bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vnworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But it followeth immediatly in Augustine: E…ce quemadmodum obsint diuina & sanctamatè vtentibus. Cur non eodem modo baptismus? See how diuine and holy thinges doe hurte them that vse them amisse. Why not baptisme after the same manner? These last wordes declare that Augustine saying that the body and bloud of Christ, may be hurtfull, speaketh of the Sacrament, and not of the thing or matter of the Sacrament, as in baptisme. As he teacheth in exposition of the doctrine of Christ in Saint Iohn. The Sacrament of this thing, (saith he) is receiued of som to life, of some to destruction, but the thing it selfe, or matter of the Sacrament, which is the body and bloud of Christ, is of none receiued to destruction, but of all vntounto life, as many as receiue it. By whose whole discourse it is manifest, that Augustine vnderstandeth Christ speaking of spirituall eating, which may be without the Sacrament: and maketh a difference betwene ye meat there spoken of, which presently was offered to be eaten, & the Sacrament therof which afterward was instituted. Therfore whatsoeuer Sander doth glory, of all authority vponupon earth, concurring to his position, there is no authority from heauen, to prooue, that Christ in the 6. of S. Iohn spake of his supper at all, or that his supper may be vnderstood therin, otherwise then the Sacrament and seale of that spirituall and heauenly eating & drinking of Christes flesh and bloud, which of the fathers and of all the faithfull hath bene eaten and drunken, vntounto eternall life, not only in this Sacrament, but in other Sacramentes of Gods ordeining, and without all Sacramentes, by faith and power of Gods spirite.
CAP. VI.
The meate tarying to euerlasting life, which Christ promiseth Sander.…o giuegive, is meant of his reall flesh and bloud to be giuen at his last supper.
Sander by conference of this verse, Operamini cibū, &c. Fulke.labour for the meate, or as he translateth i…, worke the meate that perisheth not, &c. with that which foloweth, where he saith, the bread which I will giuegive, &c. prooueth that Christe speaketh of his flesh and bloud to be eaten and drunken. But that the same is to be giuen only at his last supper, which is the onelyonly matter in controuersie, he is not able to prooue. His first reason is, that because Christ saieth, his flesh is meate in deede, the word verè declareth not only a metaphorical worke, by faith, but a true worke of the body and soule, the one in beleeuing, the other in eating. As though Christ is not meat truly, when he is eaten by faith in the soule, or as though a metaphorical meat, can not be called a meate truly or in deede, when Christ speaking metaphorically, saith he is a true vine. But Tertullian saieth, the flesh feedeth of the body and bloud of Christ, as before wee hauehave often heard, where he speaketh of externall Sacramentes and outwarde signes, as of baptisme, oynting, imposition of hands, &c. What Theophylact a late writer saith, we esteem not worth ye weighing. But Cyrillus he alleageth for his purpose, who referreth the gift plainly to the incarnation of Christ, and not to his supper: In Ioan. lib. 3. Cap. 28. Diuina humanis, &c. He hath ioyned the thinges of man to the thinges of God, and touched the whole mystery of his incarnation, &c. Last of all, he citeth Ignatius in Ep. ad Romanos, who expoundeth the bread, and flesh, and bloud spiritually, and not of ye Sacrament. Non mihi placet, &c. The perishing meate and pleasures of this life please me not. I will hauehave the bread of God, the heauenly breade, the breade of life, which is the flesh of Christ the sonne of God, and I will hauehave the cupp of his bloud which is incorruptible louelove and life euerlasting. If the cuppe of Christes bloud be incorruptible charity and life euerlasting, then is it the effect of Christes bloud, that Ignatius speaketh of, and not his naturall bloud, which is the cause thereof. Other prooues then these, Sander hath not in this Chapter for his purpose, which prooue it nothing at all.
CAP. VII.
The equality of substance with his father, which Christ alleageth Sander.for his gift, prooueth the reall presence of his body and bloud in the Sacrament of the altar, euen as God the father gau… him reall flesh and bloud at his incarnation.
This argument is thus framed: The sonne of man i… equall Fulk.with God his father. God the father hath giuen his sonne to the world, and made him true man, the true bread of life: therefore God the sonne being equall with his father, will giuegive vsus the same true flesh of the sonne of man as meate that shall tary with vsus to euerlasting life. But his father gaue him to the world, not only in faith and spirite, but in reall and substantiall flesh. Therfore God the sonne by drift of his talke doth signifie, that he will giuegive in his supper, wherof he speaketh, not in spirite and faith only, but in truth of nature and substance, the selfe same reall and substantiall flesh. O what sporte would such an argumente make among the Sophisters in Cambridge and Oxford: In which be so many tearmes and neuer a meane, so many false propositions, so many petitions of principles, so much more in the conclusion, then was in the premisses, finally so many words, and so litle to ye purpose. But I will make answere briefely and plainly. The equally of Christ with his father, prooueth in deed that he is able to doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him, and to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth. But he no where in his Chapter promiseth to giuegive his reall & substantiall flesh to be eaten bodily: therefore his almighty power prooueth nothing of that purpose. But he promiseth to giuegive vsus the same true flesh, which he receiued of his father to be meate tarying vntounto eternal life. This promise he perfourmeth daiely vntounto the electe, making his bodye and bloud which was crucified and shedde for vsus, to be food of euerlasting continuance. Yea (saith Sander) but God gaue him to the world, not only in faith and spirite, but in trueth of nature and substance: therefore Christ will giuegive vsus his reall flesh in substance not in faith and spirite onelyonly. A strange argument, God gaue Christ to ye world in the true nature and substance of fleshe, not in spirite and faith only. What mean you by this: God gaue him not in spirite and faith onelyonly? For any thing that I vnderstande of your meaning, God gaue him not in faith & spirite at all. For when you speak of Christs incarnation, and of God sending him in the flesh, what sense is it to say, he sent him in faith or in spirit? But God gaue him naturall flesh, and God gaue him to the world manifested in the flesh. But howe doth the worlde receiue him being giuen in reall and substantiall flesh? How did all the Patriarkes, Prophetes, and elect before the time of his incarnation receiue him, who being giuen to the world, must needes be giuen to them also? Verily no otherwise, then in spirite and by faith. Euen so Christ promising to giuegive his flesh and his bloud to be meate & drinke vntounto vsus, meaneth not, that it should otherwise be receiued then in spirite and by faith, either in his supper or in baptisme, or without any of the Sacraments. And heerevnto the diuine power of Christ serueth to assure our faith, that he can giuegive vsus his very naturall and diuine flesh, to be receiued spiritually, and faithfully, to feede and nourish vsus vntounto life euerlasting assuredly.