Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2
CAP. I.
The argument of the sixt chapter of saint Iohn, is declared.Sander.
First he affirmeth that Christ may bee receiued three Fulk.wayes, by faith and spirit onelyonly without the Sacrament, in the Sacrament of the Altar onelyonly without faith and grace, or in both together. Of the laste kind of receiuing, he affirmeth that Christ speaketh toward the later end of the Chap. In the beginning vponupon occasion of the miracle of multiplying bread and fishes, he exhorteth the Iewes to worke the meate that perisheth not, which the sonne of man will giuegive them. This gift (saith hee) is plainelie meant of his last supper, and so saith Theophilact, a late writer. But because they could not come to the working of this gift, without faith vponupon him, therefore hee teacheth, for a preparation, that he is the breade of life, &c▪ After which preparation made, he returneth (saith he) to expounde his owne gifte, shewing most expressely, that, which he will giuegive in his last supper. And the breade which I will giuegive, is my flesh, for the life of the worlde. But the gift of spirituall eating was not to come, when Christ spake vntounto his disciples, but Christ saieth, his peculiar gifte was to come. This onelyonly reason he vseth in this Chapter. Wherein you must note, first that heere of a falsifying minde, hee citeth the wordes of Christ otherwise then Saint Iohn did write them. For his wordes are these: And the breade that I will giuegive, is my fleshe, which I will giuegive for the life of the worlde. In which wordes, the gifte is manifestly referred vntounto his passion, and not vntounto his supper. Wherefore although spirituall eating of his fleshe, was from the beginning of the worlde, yet that singular act, by which the flesh of Christ had vertue to feede vntounto eternall life, and was giuen for meate, was not then performed, but was soone after accomplished in his death and passion. For all benefites of Christe, hauehave like streames flowed alwayes, from the bloud of his crosse, and our redemption and reconciliation thereby. If Sander will excuse him selfe of falsifying the scripture, because the vulgar translation in the later ende of the sentence, leaueth out these words, which I will giuegive, which it is certaine, by the Greeke text of saint Iohn, that our sauiour Christ did speake, hee cannot so escape: for the Latine texte without his preiudicate opinion, brought vntounto it, although it want the wordes, yet may well reteine the sense. But Sander wilfully leauing out these wordes, which he knoweth both to hauehave beene vsed by Christ, and which giuegive a cleere and cleane contrarie sense, to that whiche hee affirmeth, and that in so weightie a matter, as is the passion of Christe, wittingly incurreth the horrible cursse of GOD, pronounced against all them that adde or take any thing from his holie worde.
CAP. II.
It is prooued by circumstances, and by the conference of holie Sander.Scriptures, that Christe speaketh in saint Iohn of his laste supper.
The circumstances are 6. the conferences 17. and yet Fulk.neither any one, nor altogether, prooue, that Christ speaketh of his supper, otherwise then as it is a seale of the do ctrine which he teacheth in that Chapter.
The first circumstance is, ye time, which he supposeth to be Easter tweluemonth, before his supper instituted, to argue, that he speaketh of his supper, is a vaine argument, both because the time is vncertaine, and also because the time of Easter, if it were certaine, hath better relation to his passion, then to his supper.
The 2. circumstance is, the myracle made in breade. A ridiculous matter, as though it were not made also in flesh. But in deede the myracle made in meate, gaue occasion to that doctrine vttered in that Chapter, as S. Iohn sheweth. The 3. circumstance, the Propheticall promise, what he would doe the Easter tweluemoneth after. I answere, that promise was fulfilled in his passion.
The 4. the conference of thinges done and said about the sea of Tiberias, & at Capernaum, with that was done and said in the last supper. This conference followeth afterward in the 17. conferences. The 5. the present eating of the fathers gift. The 6. the eating of Christes gift to come. To these two circumstances, I answere, that Christ exhorteth the Iewes to the present eating of his flesh, vponupon paine of damnation: Except ye eate the flesh, &c. He which eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, hath life euerlasting. Therfore the flesh & bloud of Christ, might be eaten and drunken before his supper. Wherfore none of these circumstances do proue a promise of a sacramentall eating, which may be without profite, nor an eating of the naturall substance of flesh and bloud of Christ in the sacrament, which at that time was not instituted. But nowe we must come to the conferences. Foure of which conferences, are bread. 2. blessing. 3. thanksgiuing. 4. eating in both. I answere, so there was in all the dinners, and suppers that euer hee did make. Beside that, heere is multiplying, and fish, which is not in the last supper. Therefore a vaine conference. The fift is that as heere, hee beginneth his talke of common breade, and endeth with eating and drinking his fleshe and bloude, so in his supper, hee tooke common breade in his handes, and ended his banket in eating and drinking of his body and bloude. But when Sander can make a consequence, of this conference, I will yeelde vntounto it, that he speaketh of Sacramentall eating.
The 6 and 7. the sonne of man is the giuer, & meate is giuen in both: ergo hee speaketh in both of the Sacraments. I denie the argument, for the meate which the sonne of man giueth, may bee eaten without the Sacrament, and therefore hee saith, he that nowe eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, when as yet that sacrament was not instituted. The 8. conference. Hee saith, the breade which I will giuegive, is my fleshe, and not the bread which I will take. So in his supper, he tooke one kinde of breade, and gaue another. This is a noble conference, to tel vsus what Christ said not. According to which, I might conferre this: He saith, the breade which I will giuegive, hee saieth not, the drinke which I will giuegive, is my bloude, therefore in the supper he giueth not his bloude.
The 9. conference, the fleshe is giuen in the one, and nothing but the bodie in the other, for the substance of common breade was chaunged. This reason in deede is of great weight, if transubstantiation were granted.
The 10. No common breade is giuen in either of both places, if by common breade he meant prophane breade, and not dedicated to holy vse. I confesse the conference, but seeing by common breade, he meaneth naturall breade, I denie it. For though no naturall or materiall breade was promised to bee giuen in the sixte of Saint Iohn, yet was naturall breade giuen in the Sacrament.
The 11. The fleshe that dyed for vsus, is giuen in both. That is true, but after diuerse manners: in the one it is giuen in a Sacrament, in the other more generally, but in both to bee spiritually receiued, and not carnally. The 12. The gift is eaten in deede in both: I confesse, but spiritually and by faith, yet with this difference, that in the one, it is eaten often without the sacrament, the other is a seale or a sacrament of that, which is eaten euen without it.
The 13. The bloude of Christ is drunke in both. It is so drunke, as the flesh is eaten. The 14. As in the sixt of Iohn, there is no wine spoken of: so Christ in his supper neither spake of wine, but of drinking, nor gaue any wine at all to bee drunke, because it was by his wordes chaunged into his bloude. I answere, If bread were spoken of, in that which was taken into his hands, wine by Metonymia was spoken of, by taking the cuppe. Secondly, if the fruite of the vine be the matter of wine, wine was spoken of. At Caparnaum, there was no wine spoken of, nor any occupied. Let Sander see howe hee can make the conference with the supper, in which wine was occupied, although he say, it was not drunk, which is a weightie argument, when that which is in question, is brought for the proofe. Last of all, if Christ at his supper, gaue no wine at all to be drunke (as Sander saith) howe agreeth the Popish communion with Christs supper? seeing the Papistes doe giuegive wine to bee drunke, vntounto the laye people.
The 15. The twelue Apostles most faithfull, taried with him at Caparnaum, so they alone were admitted in the night of his betraying, to his holy table. In ye faithfull tarying of the twelue Apostles, he forgetteth Iudas, and that the twelue onelyonly were present at the institution of the supper, it is vncertaine. For it is certaine there was more then twelue present at the eating of the Passeouer: and it is prooued before, that Iudas went out before the Sacrament ordeined.
The 16. Peter with the twelue protested in both places, not to forsake Christe. So they did at other times and places, where no mention was of eating Christ. The last, Iudas was reprooued in both places. I answere, Iudas was reprooued in other places, where no promise or mention of the supper is made. Finally I answere, that not any one, nor altogether of these conferences, can make any consequence, to prooue that our Sauiour Christ in that sixt of Iohns Gospel, speaketh of the Sacrament, otherwise then as it is a seale, a pledge, an vndoubted token of assurance, of that spirituall eating & drinking of Christs flesh and bloud, which in that Chapter is commended vntounto vsus.