Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 1 · Chapter
What the supper of Christ is, according to the doctrine of the Sander.Protestantes and Sacramentaries, with a confutation thereof.
He affirmeth that we say: Christ giueth to the bodie breade Fulke.and wine, but to the soule he giueth himselfe by saith, spirit, and vnderstanding. This he maketh to be all the banket of the newe brethren. Against this he inueyeth in a long chapter. But either he is ignorant what we teach, or rather he is not willing to shewe it, that by rehersing it imperfectly, he might hauehave more aduantage to dispute against it. We beleeue, that Christ giuing vntounto vsus bread and wine, as visible seales of his inuisible grace, giueth to ye whole man, his body and blood, to be receiued of him by faith, after a spiritual and wonderful maner, passing al vnderstanding of man, wherby we are assured, that we are spiritually fed, vntounto eternal life, euē as by the seale of baptisme, we are assured that we are spiritually, and wonderfully washed from our sins, & born anew to be ye sonnes of God. We say not therefore ye god giueth himselfe by faith, spirit & vnderstanding, to our soules onelyonly: but he giueth himself vntounto vsus, to be receiued by faith & spirituallie. But now let vsus see what fault he findeth wt our saying: we say ye truth (saith he) but not all the trueth. For this had bene somewhat worth, before ye incarnation of Christ, whē Christ was eaten only by faith, but since his incarnation, he giueth vsus an other kind of truth thē euer he gaue to thē So faith M. S. But S. Paul saith, our fathers did al eate ye same spiritual meate yt we do, and drink the same spiritual cuppe yt we do, for they dranke of ye rocke, which rocke was Christ, as substantially as ye bread and wine are his body & bloud vntounto vsus. 1. Cor. 10. But S. saith our eating lacketh some truth, because ye whol mā is not fed. I answere yt is no cause, for we hold yt the whole man is fed wt Christ, to be saued both body & soule. For wher he …ith, yt faith seedeth but ye soule, it is false: for God by faith feedeth both bodie and soule vntounto eternal life. But this is Sanders error, yt he thinketh Christ cannot feede our bodies by faith, except he thrust his body in at our mouthes. He might likewise say, that in baptisme we are but halfe regenerated in soule onelyonly, because the holy ghost is not powred ouer our bodies: yet we beleue that we are washed & regenerated wholy both in body and soule, so that our bodies by baptisme are engraffed into the death, burial, & resurrection of Christ. Rom. 6 and so we beleeue, yt by eating of this bread, & drinking of this cuppe of the Lord worthily, our whole man is fed after a spirituall manner, with the quickning flesh and bloude of our sauiour Christ, vntounto euerlasting life. And wheras Leo saith, That is taken by the mouth, which is beleeued Ser. 6. de Iei…. 7. mens.by faith: he meaneth none othewise, then when the scripture saith, that baptisme is ye lauer of regeneration; and when we confesse yt the body of Christ is eaten, when we meane the sacramēt therof is eaten bodily. In which sense, the same Leo writeth Epistel. 10. ad Plaui, against the heresie of Eutyches. Videat que … transixa dauis pependerit in crucis ligno, & aperto per militis lanceam latere crucifixi, intelligat vnde sāgnis & aqua esfluxerint, ut ceclesia Dei lauacro rigaretur & poculo. Let him see what nature being striken through with nayles, hath hanged on the woode of ye crosse, and when ye side of him that was crucified was opened, let him vnderstand, from whence yt blood & water flowed, yt the church of god might be moistened, both by a lauer, & by a cupp. By these words he sheweth, that ye bloud in ye cuppe, is none otherwise ye bloud of Christ, thē ye water of baptisme, is ye water that issued out of his side, which is far from ye popish vnderstanding. As for ye often eating & drinking, recorded in ye scriptures, in ye sacrifices, Manna, ye rocke, water, ye Paschal lambe ye shewbread, & c: which Sāder wold hauehave to be but figures of ye bodily eating of Christs flesh: I answere they were sacraments of ye spiritual norishmēt of ye faithful appointed for that time, as this supper is appropriated to our time, and not because the bodily eating of the forbidden fruit, could not otherwise be purged, from vsus, but by bodily eating of Christs flesh, as he assurmeth. The sinne of Adam was not in eating, but in eating disobediently, so that eating of it selfe, was no fault, nor any poyson was in the nature of the fruite, that was eaten, as Sander dreameth, but disobedience was the sin of Adam, which by the obedience of Christ is done awaye as S. Paul teacheth, Rom. 5. ver. 19. As by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by ye obedience of one man many shall be made righteous. Neither doth Cyprian saye otherwise, although he allude to the tasting of the forbidden fruite, De Coen. Dom. Bibimus &c: We drinke of the bloud of Christ himselfe commanding, being partakers of eternall life with him, and by him, abhorring the sinnes of naturall lust as vnpure bloud, & granting our selues by tast of sinne to hauehave ben depriued from blessednes and condemned, except the mercy of Christ, had brought vsus againe vntounto fellowship of eternal life by his bloud. Although Cyprian here allude vntounto the acte in which disobedience was committed, yet in the end he sheweth, that by the obedience of Christe shedding his bloud for vsus, we are restored into the fauor of God, and not by actuall drinking of the naturall bloud of Christ into our bodyes. Neither doth Prosper Aquitanicus thinke otherwise, Cont. Collat, Liberum ergo arbitrium &c. Free will therfore, that is, the voluntary appetite of the thing that pleased it selfe, after it had lothed the vse of the good thinges which it had receiued, and the aydes of his owne happines, waxing of such account with it, bent his impotent greedines, vntounto the experience of disobedience, dranke the poyson of all vices, and drouned the whole nature of man with the dronkennes of his intemperance Thence it commeth, that before the eating of the same flesh of the sonne of man and drinking his bloud, he digest that deadly surset, he fayleth in memory, erreth in iudgment, wauereth in going, neither is he by any meanes meet to chuse and desire that good thing, wherof he depryued himself of his owne accord. This eating and drinking cannot be vnderstood of eating and drinking the Sacrament, for the will of man must be prepared both to chuse and desire that good, from which man is fallen, before euer he be admitted to the Lordes table, as eueryevery Papist will confesse. What impudencie then is it, vponupon shadowe of some allusion, to drawe the ancient Doctors sayings so contrary to their meaning? But Sander seeing the shamefull absurditie that followeth of this his imagined reall eatinge of Christes fleshe, to satisfie for the reall eating of Adams aple, for so he calleth it, saith it is no more needfull that eueryevery mā should eate the body of Christ in his own person, then that euerye one should eate of the aple to make them guilty, but it is absolutely needful (saith he) that some …r other eate it as really, as euer the apple was eaten, that all the rest, who by baptisme enter into the same body, may be one perfectly with Christ, whiles they are one mystically with thē, who really eate the substance of Christes flesh, being the substance of our true sacrifice, truly rosted vponupon the crosse. This shift of descant, then will not serue the fathers of the old testament, which were not baptised verily as the Papistes holde, but in figure only. Secondly if any such real eating were necessary, it were not to be fulfilled by any, but by our sauiour Christ: for what soeuer the transgression of Adam was, who being but one, made al guilty of damnation, that was to be satisfied by the iustification of one man, which was Christ, sufficient for all men vntounto iustification of life, Rom. 5. ver. 18. Last of all I praye you marke Sander his phrase of speech: The flesh of Christ was truly rosted vponupon the crosse. To omitte the grosse figure of rosting., and to register it among the other pointes of fine cookery in the chapter before described: Marke that he saith, it was truly rosted vponupon the crosse, and yet I dare say, he meaneth not that the crosse was a very spitt, nor yet burning with fire to scorche it. But when we affirme that Christ is truely eaten, he can by no meanes allowe our saying, except we should meane as he doth, that Christ is putt in at our mouthes, and if not chewed with our teeth, which some of them holde, yet swallowed downe our throte, and so receiued into our bodies, to nourish them. But if he saye well that Christes flesh was truely rosted vpō the crosse, because his body being broken on the crosse, was made meate for vsus, although it were not rosted with fire, &c. then may we rightly saye, that Christes body and bloud is truely eaten and dronken of vsus by faith, although it be not put in at our mouthes, nor swallowed down our throtes, &c. He saith …was truly rosted on the crosse, and truly rising from death, to th… intent it might be truly eaten of vsus. &c. As truly as his flesh was rosted, so truely is it eaten: but we acknowledge no cooklike rosting, but a mystical preparation: euen so we beleeue no eating with champing, chawing, & swallowing, but a mysticall and spirituall feeding and nourishing, of which wee are assured by the visible seales of bread and wine, which we eate and drinke bodily. After this, he alledgeth Gregorius Nyssenus in Orat. Cathe…. to proue that it is necessary, as ye poisoned apple was eaten of Adam to infect vsus with original sinne, so, that the body of Christ be receiued into our body, as really by our mouths, as euer the apple came in the mouth of Adam. That he nameth not the 37. Chapiter, where such a matter is spoken of, it may be, the copy he saw, had no diuision of Chapiters: but rather I feare he suppressed it of fraude, because that Chapiter is confessed euen by Sonnius a Papiste, not to bee found in many copies of that Catheticall booke of Gregory: and in deede the argument of that part of ye oration which goeth before, and of that which followeth after, being of regeneration in baptisme, which argument is interrupted by this discourse of the supper, sheweth that it is foysted in by some late writer, which would hauehave the new doctrine of transubstantiation to bee credited vnderunder colour of the authority of this ancient father. For if Gregory had ben purposed to hauehave spoken of ye Lords supper in this booke of instruction, which he did write for to shewe the order and doctrine of Catechizing, he would first hauehave finished his treaty of baptisme and regeneration, and afterwarde hauehave descended to the other parte of Gods dispensation, which consisteth in preseruing and feeding his children that are borne vntounto him, which grace is represented in the Lordes supper. I passe ouer yt Nicephorus testifieth, euen yt book in his time to hauehave bene corrupted by diuers heretiks & Origenists by name, which corruption and diuersity of copies gaue some transubstantiator good hope, that his addition in such variety of bookes might happilye of some be accounted for the authentical authoritie of Gregorie. And he was nothing deceiued. For M. Sander, whether he think it to be such, or onelyonly would hauehave vsus to acknowledge it for such, dissembling the vn certeintie thereof, which other papistes confesse; setteth it foorth, as the sounde and vndoubted authoritie of Gregorie Nyssene. As for his vaine cauilling, that the figure of a medicine healeth not, is foolish and absurde: for so he might reason, that baptisme is no medicine for originall sinne, but a figure of a medicine. We make not the sacraments figures of medicins, but outward signes of inward and spirituall healing. The vertue of cleansing sinnes, is not included in the water, no more then the spirituall feeding is in ye breade and wine. And more absurde it is, that hee chargeth vsus with shadowes in the sacraments. And where he sayeth, that all spirituall giftes are inferiour to ye flesh of Christ being in our mouth: if he meane inferior in vtility, it is false: for by those spiritual gifts without that flesh, which he imagineth in our mouthes, ye Papists confesse, that we may be saued, but with that fleshe in our mouthes, by their owne doctrine, we may be damned.
From this place he beginneth to raue against Caluin, although he hauehave appointed a whole chapter following to confute his error. Caluines supper he sayth, in respect of Christs real substance, is but a meere sauour of sweete meates. As though Caluine did not acknoweledge that Christ is truly eaten of them, yt worthily receiue the sacraments. Beside this he chargeth Caluine, as one yt setteth forth the kingdom of the diuel, & abaseth the kingdom & gifts of God. Because he hath diligently & eloquently set forth ye doctrin of mans fall & dānation, but in ye doctrine of saluation & renouation by Christ, he hath dealt faintly & weakly. God be thāked, they which wil read Caluin of this point, wt indifferēt iudgemēt, wil cōfesse, yt he hath shewed no lesse diligence & eloquence therin, then in the other. And wherfore hath he set forth y• one, but for the glorie of the other? And euen by those things which be not slanders in Sand, by which he saith he hath abased ye kingdō & gift of God, he hath greatly magnified the glorie thereof: which is, that all power, vertue, helpe, comfort, grace, & giftes, come onelyonly from God by the onelyonly meanes of Iesus Christ. Hereof it is that Christes litle flocke is contemptous in the eyes of the worlde, that many are called and fewe are chosen, that his Church hath no sacrifice propitiatorie, no popish priesthood, no one sheepheard on earth, but onelyonly the death, eternall priesthood, and greate sheephearde Iesus Christ. As for the colde supper, small offering of sufficient grace, baptisme like a sheepemarke, no authoritie to make lawes, no communion of Saintes, no reall ioyning and vniting with Christes fleshe and bloud in the holy mysteries, &c. be Sanders lyes, and slanders; not Caluins assertions. After he hath railed a crash at Caluine, vntounto whose felicitie this may be added, that he is slandered by so euill a person, as Sander is, he repeteth the diuerse suppers of Luther, Zwinglius, Caluine, ioyning to them also the fantasticall opinion of that epicurian gospeller, Carolastadius, and disseuering Caluine from Zwinglius, with whome he agreeth fully. And Caluines supper he saith, were good for Angels, to feede vponupon immortall meate in their soules, but Christ hath giuen his bodie and bloud to be eaten and drunken of our bodies to feede on. Verily, euen as he hath giuen the holy ghost to wash vsus body and soule from all our sinnes, and to regenerate vsus to be the sonnes of God: Sander might say, if he would, this were a regeneration, or birth, good for Angels, that hauehave no bodies. For hee will not vnderstand, that both bodie and soule may bee nourished by spirituall foode, as well as both body & soule borne a newe by a spirituall washing and engraffing into the body of Christ. But the Corinthians (saith he) had two faultes, both which the heretikes doe followe. The first fault, they came to it after they had eaten their owne supper, so the heretikes first deuise what supper they wil allowe Christ, and then they come to it, conforming it to their deuise. In deede so doe the Papistes. The second fault was, they did eate and drinke alone without making their meate common to the poore: so the heretikes eate and drinke alone, teaching, that eueryevery man eateth Christ onelyonly by measure of his owne faith. Nay rather the Popishe heretikes eate and drinke all alone often times, not tarying for other to communicate with them, and alwaies they drinke all alone, giuing no parte to them that woulde drinke with them, which is worse then the Corinthians did: for they eate not their supper alone, which teach that Christe must be eaten of the whole Church together, requiring faith in eueryevery man that shall receiue the Sacrament worthily. But Sander maketh Christ so liberall, that he giueth himselfe to all that sit at the table, riche or poore, good or badde. In deede, he offereth himselfe to al, but he giueth himself to none, but to such as receiue him thankefully, and which take profite by him: wherefore he saith, He that eateth mee, shal liue for me, whereupon it followeth inuincibly, that hee which liueth not for him, eateth him not. Neither sayth Hierom any thing contrarie to this, where he sayeth, that Christ hath giuen his body to be eaten, himselfe beeing the meate and the feaster or guest. True it is, that Christ alone in his death, was the priest, the Sacrifice, and the temple, or altar, not playing all partes, as Sander lewdly speaketh, but perfourming throughly in his owne person, whatsoeuer was necessarie for our full and perfect redemption, the seale and assurance whereof, with al benefites thereto belonging, he giueth vsus in his holy supper, and not bare odours of spirituall grace, but a true communicating of his body and bloud vntounto euerlasting life, of as many as with a true and liuely faith receiue it spiritually, as their bodies receiue the outwarde elements of bread and wine bodily. Like as in baptisme wee receiue not bare odours of spirituall grace, but are verily borne a newe, and ingraffed into the death, buriall, and resurrection of Christ, after a diuine and heauenly manner with forgiuenesse of our sinnes, euen as outwardly our bodies are sprinkled or washed with pure water. Wherefore, that which wee teache of the receiuing of the body and bloud of Christ by faith, is no denying of the Lordes supper, but a cleare exposition and setting foorth of the same, according to the holy scriptures, and the institution of our Sauiour Christe himselfe.