Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 10 – Chapter 11
CAP. X.
By the shadow of the law past, and by the naked trueth to come Sander.in heauen, it is perceiued that the middle state of the newe Testament requireth the real presence of Christs bodie vnderunder the forme of breade.
He groundeth vponupon the 10. to the Hebrews: The Law F…lke.hath the shadowe of good things to come, and not the verie image of things: applying the shadowe to the Lawe, the image to the gospel, and the things themselues to the life to come. In which application, he seeth not howe he graunteth to the Gospel, but an image of things, and not the thinges themselues, and thereby in deede, denieth the verie flesh of Christ to be giuen vsus, but an image thereof, For his glosse will not stande with the Apostles wordes, that we hauehave the verie flesh of Christ vnderunder the image o… forme of bread, the Apostle saying, we hauehave the image of things: which image if it be none other, but the accidents of breade, wee hauehave no great prerogatiue aboue the Law. In deede the Apostle meaneth, that the same things which were but rudely shadowed, as it wer with a cole, to the fathers in the Law, are in a liuely image described, and set forth vntounto vsus in the Gospel. For the Gospel hath not those good thinges which are to come, but possesseth them by faith. Therefore how foolish is that conclusion of Sander, vppon this text? Christ gaue vsus his real flesh vnderunder the forme of breade, or else he gaue not the thing it selfe: and if hee gaue it without figure, out state were not an image of the things themselues. Wheras the Apostle speaketh not of these things which are giuen, but of the clearenes of the doctrine, of those things which are promised: and therefore he calleth them good things to come, and Christ an high Priest of good things to come. As madde, yea and more frantike is that conclusion, that Christ cannot be a mediator betweene the two Testaments, except he gaue his flesh vnderunder the forme and figure of breade. By which drunken conclusion, it should follow, that Christs mediation depended vponupon the institution of the Sacrament, which the Apostle in expresse words doth affirme to hauehave bene made complet in his death, which was effectuall vntounto all ages alike. Heb. 9. Also that Christ in Baptisme, hath not shewed himselfe to be a mediator greater then Moses, because he hath not therein giuen vsus his naturall flesh, which is in heauen: And last of all, that Christ is not a mediator vntounto the fathers that liued before the institution of his supper, but onelyonly to them that are partakers of his flesh in the supper. Againe, as vntrue it is, that because Christ came to fulfill the Law, therfore it was necessarie, that he should giuegive his flesh vnderunder a figure: which flesh was not giuen to them that liued vnderunder the Lawe: as though there were one meane of saluation for them, and another for vsus.
The scripture doth often distinguish the Law, and the Gospel, shewing what is peculiar to either of them, but it neuer affirmeth, that the persons liuing in the time of the strength of Moses Lawe, were saued otherwise then by the Gospel, that is by remission of sinnes, through faith in ye merciemercy of God reconciled to vsus by Iesus Christ. Therefore it is more then blockish, to wrest the distinction of the Testamēts, to make a difference of the saluation of the persons. Seing the new Testament was not first ordeined (as Sander seemeth to say) when Christ did institute his supper, which hee called the new Testament, but euen from the beginning of the world, but yet to take effect, vertue and strength, by the death of Christ, of which Testament, the supper is a sacrament, bearing the name of the thing whereof it is a Sacrament, as well when it is called the newe Testament, as when it is called the bodie and bloude of Christ. And therefore the example of the precept, of not killing, expounded by Christ to extend to anger, proueth not any newe trueth to be added by the Gospel, but the ancient right meaning of the cōmandement, deliuered from the glosse of the Pharisees, which expounded the precept, onelyonly of murthering with the hand. For who will say that such anger as Christ forbiddeth, was lawfull before the time he made that exposition; or that to commit adulterie in heart, by lusting after a woman, was not sinne, before Christ did so interpret that commaundement. If it were sinne, then it was a breach of the Law: if it were a breach of the Lawe, it was of the Lawe that was giuen: therefore the Lawe was alwayes spirituall, and had that true meaning, and was so taken of all good men, before Christ reprooued the corruption of the Pharisaical glosses. That all legall instruction, and propheticall figures, are transferred into the sacraments of Christ, as Leo saith, we agre. We denie not, that which Dionyse saieth, although wee may not acknowledge him to hauehave beene S. Pauls scholler: that our holy gouernement partaketh of heauen, spirituall contemplation, and of the Lawe sensible signes. Neither of both these autorities proue ye matter in question. As for the distinction of gifts, whervnto Sand. tumbleth againe, in the end of this chapter, we make not voyd by our figuratiue doctrine. But such distinction as was in deede, betweene that which Moses gaue, and God gaue, we vpholde by our figuratiue doctrine, which sheweth y• right difference betweene the auctor and ye minister, the signe & the thing signified. But yt distinction betwene ye gift which ye Father gaue alwayes, and yt which the sonne promiseth to giuegive to be diuerse, whē Sander cā proue, we may be brought to acknowledge it: In the meane time, yt promise of continuance of that gift, in the Future temps, which Christ hath alwayes giuen, is a slender argument to proue the distinction of gifts imagined by Sander.
Finally in substance of the foode of eternal life, as we differ not in the life eternall it selfe, we are not preferred before ye lewes. They did all eat the same spiritual meate &c: Our prefermente is more cleere sight and vnderstanding, euen such difference as is between the knowledge, obteined by a description of a bodie shadowed, and liuely set foorth in colours, which is the shadow and verie image that the Apostle speaketh of. Heb. 10.
CAP. XI.
The bread that Christ promiseth to giuegive which is his flesh, must needs be meant of the substance of his flesh.Sander.
There is no doubt but Christ did giuegive the substance Fulke.of his flesh, which being crucified for vsus, is made ye bread of life and spirituall meate and drinke to be receiued of vsus, not after any corporall manner of eating, but by faith in spirit, not onelyonly in the Sacrament of his supper, but in baptisme also, and without any sacrament. But that it must stand for a trueth vniuersally receiued, that Christ saying, The breade which I will giuegive is my flesh, meant ye bread which I wil giuegive you at my last supper, that I say I denie. What Sander vaunteth he hath proued thereof, in the 5. and 6. chapters of this booke, let it bee examined with mine answere. But admit he had spoken principally of his supper, yet doeth it not followe, which Sander doth inferre, that he promised to giuegive his flesh to Iudas because he was one of the twelue which taryed with him at Capernaum, for his promise in offer, was as large to all that departed, and to the world, for the life whereof he promised to giuegive his flesh, therefore it cannot be concluded that it was not onelyonly a spirituall gift that was promised but an externall gift deliuered by hand, which Iudas might receiue. For Christ promiseth such a gift, as if it be receiued, worketh eternall life in the receiuers.
Finally, it cannot be prooued, that Iudas was prsēt at the supper, who departed about his treason, before the institution of the sacrament, as appeareth by saint Iohn immediatly after the soppe receiued, wherevnto some of the ancient writers also do consent. Furthermore, yt the gift of Christ doth differ from ye gift of his father in person and time, and therfore cannot be giuen by faith only, it is no good consequent. For God gaue his sonne for the worlde, and Christ gaue himselfe for vsus, yet but one gift. The difference of time, I hauehave often answered. As for the obiection, yt he faineth the Sacramentaries must say, that that flesh heere stādeth for the signe or figure of his flesh, is of his owne making, for as I said before, we vnderstand the flesh of Christ giuen for the life of the world, his naturall body, crucified for vsus, and not the sacrament of his body giuen in his last supper.