Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 12 – Chapter 13
CAP. XII.
A further declaration of the reall presence of Christes body and Sander.bloud, taken out of the discourse of his owne wordes concerning the different eating of him by faith, and the receiuing of his flesh and bloud in the Sacrament of the Altar.
First he repeteth his three gifts. God gaue by Moses, Fulke.naked figures, as Manna: God giueth presently, the flesh of Christ to our eyes and heartes: and Christ will giuegive hereafter the same flesh, vnderunder the forme of breade. Of these giftes he maketh three diuerse workes: the first by teeth and belly, the seconde by faith and spirite, and the thirde by both. The gift of Christ differing from Manna, is expressed in the Chapter. But any difference of the gift of the father, and of the sonne, there is not expressed, nor to be gathered by any note of distinction or dissentanie argument. Yet Sander hath founde out a great number of differences, to prooue that although the Father and the Sonne giuegive one thing, that is the flesh of Christ, yet not one way to be receiued, the Father giueth it to bee receiued by faith onelyonly, the Sonne to be receiued corporally.
The first difference is, of the time, The Father doeth giuegive in the Present tense, the Sonne will giuegive in the Future tense. This I hauehave often answered to be no differēte, for Christ saith in ye presēt temps, except ye do eat ye flesh: &c. ergo he did presently giuegive it. Againe, he that doth eat often, is oftē times repeted, in ye present time, and my flesh is meate in deede: all which prooue that Christs gift, was present when he spake to be receiued, therefore it differeth not from the Fathers gift, and way of receiuing the same.
The second difference: the Father giueth Christ in the forme of man, by the manner of the Fathers gift, the faithfull may see yt sonne of Man, vponupon whom they beleeue: as it is saide, This is the will of my Father which sent me, that eueryevery one who seeth the Sonne, and beleeueth in him, may hauehave euerlasting life. And againe: yee hauehave seene me, and hauehave not beleeued. Of the Sonnes gift it is not saide, that his flesh shalbe seene, but rather insinuated, that it shalbe vnderunder the couering of another kinde of foode. I answere, that Christ in neither of both these sayings, speaketh of the corporall sight of his body. But in the one which is first placed in S. Iohn, Yee … au: seene me, and not beleeued; he exprobrateth to the Iewes their wilfull blindnesse, which had acknowledged him before to be ye Messias, when he fed their bellyes, & now refuse to beleeue him, when hee offereth to feede their soules. In the other place, he sheweth, yt obediēce of faith ioyned to a manifest acknowledging of Christ, by the wil of God, is the way to eternal life. For if seing, should be taken for bodily seeing of Christes flesh, it could not extende to vsus which cannot bodilie behold him. Againe, this difference ouerthroweth Sanders supposed way of the fathers giuing, which is by faith and spirit onelyonly & not sensibly to the eye of the bodie. Last of all, it is a weake argument, it is not saide in this or that text: ergo it is not meant, or it is not true at all.
The 3. difference: The Fathers gifte is called the true bread from heauen: The Sonnes gift is called, not onelyonly true breade, but also truely breade and meate in deede. Some true meate may chaunce not to bee truely meat, bec…se it is not eaten: but nothing is meate in deede, and truelye meate, except it bee in deede eaten. If this difference bee woorth a strawe, then your consecrated hostes bee not the Sonnes gift, before they bee eaten: and except they bee eaten (as some time yee wo… well they are burned) they bee not his gifte at all; if not his gift, then not flesh and bloude. The difference of a true Vine, and a Vine truelie, is sufficiently discussed in the later ende of the fourth booke answered by master Nowel. Sander cannot or will not consider ye difference of the opposition betweene truely and falsely, and truely and properly.
The fourth difference: The Iewes and disciples, went not away from Christe, for any thing, that was spoken about the Fathers gifte, thinking that a gifte of eating by faith, might stande with the custome of Gods people, but in the Sonnes gift, they sawe more apparant absurdity, not lacking vnderstanding, but faith, and therefore departed. I answere, they lacked vnderstanding, as much as faith, and therefore Augustin… saith: Sed qui aderant plures, non intelligendo s…andaliazti sunt: non erum cogitabant haec audiendo nisi carnem, quod ipsi erant. But manie of them that were present, were offended for lacke of vnderstanding: For heating these thinges, they thought on nothing but fleshe, which they themselues were. It is a simple difference, that is gathered of ye Iewes ignorance and incredulitie.
The 5. difference, The gift of the father is called by such names only, as belong to the persō of Christ, or to his diuine nature to say, the bread of life, the liuely bread, the true bread (for God onelyonly is absolutelie the true bread of life) or by the Pronoune I: The gift of Christ is called also by the names of his humane nature, to wit, the flesh and bloud of the sonne of men. If this differēce proue any thing, it prooueth not the diuerse wayes of giuing the same thing, but that the same thing is not giuen by the Father and the Sonne: Where as Sander saide before, that the Father giueth Christ in humane nature, to the worlde. If the humane nature of Christ bee giuen of the father, the names thereof may well agree to the Fathers gift.
The 6 difference, That Christ endeth his talke of eche gif…, with repeting the old figure Manna, betokening by both, the shadowe of Manna to be fulfilled. But Manna was more perfectly fulfilled in outward doings by the sonnes gift. This is an agreement rather then a difference, except in the last illation, which is a meere begging of the matter in question. But there is a great difference, in that it is said of the one, If any man eate, ex hoc pane of this breade; in the other, he that eateth hunc panem this breade: and heere is made a great difference, betweene eating of Christ, and eating Christ himselfe: the one is onelyonly by faith, the other in the Sacrament of the Altar, the one is to bee partaker of the vertue and grace of Christ, the other to receiue the substance of Christ. &c. But our sauiour Christ in S. Iohn confoundeth this difference, vsing the Accusatiue case and the Ablatiue: with the preposition, for all one. I am the liuing bread, which came downe from heauen, if any man shall eate of this bread, he shall liue for euer: Here is the Ablatiue with a preposition, but what is this bread, of which he that eateth shal, liue? he answereth: The bread which I wil giuegive, is my flesh, whereof he saith afterward, Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, &c: where he vseth the Accusatiue: by which it is plaine, that with Christ, to eat this breade, & to eat of this bread, is all one. Saint Paul also ouerthroweth this difference, shewing that the Israelites did drink of ye spiritual Rock, which was Christ, vnworthily, where as none can receiue the effect of Christes death vnworthily. So he saith wee are al partakers of one bread. But Sand, not satisfied, asketh if this be ye end of our long disputatiō, yt Christ came into the world to giuegive a lesse token, then God had giuen before, vnderunder Moses &c? as though Christ came into the world for no end but to giuegive ye sacrament. As for so many differences as he dreameth of his fathers gift, and his, we finde not any one, but that they may all agree in one gift, which was not his supper, but himselfe to death, for the life of ye world, wherof eueryevery one of his elect is made partaker, as of spiritual foode, by faith & his holy spirit.
But this difference is learned, saith he, out of Chrysostome, vponupon Iohn. Ho. 45. &c. where he noteth first the diuersitie of persons, saying: Se, non patrem, that he, not his father dare to giuegive (saith Sander) but he falsifieth Chrysostome, which saith dedisse, to hauehave giuen, which proueth that it is not giuen onelyonly in the Sacrament, which then was not instituted. 2 That hee saith, Hom. 44. that Christ speaketh first of his diuinitie, and about the ende, of his bodie, prooueth not that he speaketh onelyonly of the Sacrament: For Hom. 45. he saith plainely, as Sander confesseth, that ye bread signifieth either the doctrine of Christ, and saluation, and faith in him, or else his body. Wherin hee dissenteth altogether from Sanders interpretation, who will not hauehave the bodie of Christ promised before flesh be named.
But Chrysostome saith vponupon these wordes: my flesh is meat in deed: &c. that he so saide, to the end they should not thinke him to speake in parables; but by fleshe, to meane the signe of flesh, or by eating, to meane be leeuing is to speake in parables. I answere, that wee say neither of both: but that Christ is verily eaten by faith, and by the spirite of God: yet Sander omitteth the other cause which Chrysostome rendreth of his so saying: A… quòd is est verus cibus, &c. either that hee is the true meate which saueth the soule, or else &c. But he saueth not the soule onelyonly by eating the Sacrament: therefore this meate is not eaten onelyonly in the sacrament.
Finally that which is noted out of Hom. 83. in Matth. that Christ is ioyned vntounto vsus, not by faith and louelove onelyonly, but in verie deede: Wee confesse, but so is hee ioyned to infants that neuer receiued the supper, and so was hee ioyned to all the faithfull before his incarnation, in as much as they all were members of his bodie. And so confesseth Chrysostome, in Ioan. Homil. 46. that Abraham by eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ, shall bee partaker of the resurrection, and therefore Christ saide, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, hath life eternall and I will raise him vp in the last day. The testimonies of Theophilact, and Euthynius which are but late writers in comparison, I will not stande vponupon.
CAP. XIII.
The like precept made to men of lawfull age for eating Chris… flesh, as was made generally for baptisme, sheweth his flesh to be Sanderas really present in his supper, as water is in baptisme.
Neither the one precept of regeneration is principally of baptisme, neither the other of the Lordes supper. Fulk.And the necessitie of eating and drinking the flesh and bloud of Christ, is not …aide onelyonly vponupon men of lawfull age, because they were of lawfull age to whome Christe spake, any more then the necessitie of regeneration vppon all men, seeing Nicodemus, to whome Christe saide, Except a man be borne &c. was of lawful age. For spiritual food, which is nothing else but ye body & bloud of Christ, is as necessarie for al ages, as for perfect age. But that the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vsus, as water in Baptisme to wash vsus, it is a froward and foolish comparisō: for water washeth not our soules, nor regenerateth vsus, but the holy ghost, whereof water is a signe: so the flesh of Christ is as necessarie in the supper to feede vsus, as the holy ghost, to wash vsus and regenerate vsus, which seeing it doth without transubstantiation of the water into the spirite, likewise doth the flesh and bloud of Christ nourish vsus, without transubstantiation of the outward signes into them. The right Analogie is betweene water, and breade, and wine, and betweene the spirite of God, and the flesh and bloud of Christ, not betweene outward water & spirituall flesh of Christ, which is as preposterous a comparison, is if you would compare the holy ghost in baptisme, with the breade and wine in the sacrament. But of the error of Cyprian, Innocentius, and Augustine, he will prooue, the necessitie of the presence of Christs flesh in the supper, because they gaue the communion to infantes, yt coulde not receiue it with faith & vnderstanding: therfore they thought ye very body & blod of Christ to be really cōtained in ye sacramēt. I answere it was not because they thought so, but because they thought ye one sacrament as necessarie as the other, which might, and may in deede be ministred to infants, yt hauehave not faith nor vnderstanding actually. Therfore that they ministred the communiō to infants, it shewed their error proceeding of ignorance, as all error doth: but it sheweth not, yt they thought ye one sacrament to be other wise then the other, a seale or assurance of iustification, wtout any dreame of transubstantiatiō. That Sand would excuse their custom to hauehave bin vsed more for a security, then for necessitie, is to no purpose. It is manifest yt they thought erroniously, yt the eternall signe or seale was necessary in both, as Aug. & Innocent. B. of Rome hath defined, denying eternall life to infants yt dyed without the communion and baptisme, as though the grace of God had bene necessarily tyed to the outward elements.