Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 15
CAP. XV.
Christes flesh being meate in deede, must needes be really receiued Sander.into our bodies.
Three things (saith Sander) must be considered of him Fulk.that wil knowe, why the flesh of Christ is called meate in deede. The first, that the Iewes asked howe he would giuegive his flesh to be eaten. The second, that Christ saith, the eating of his flesh was necessarie and profitable, both for bodie and soule. The thirde, that Christ confirmeth these his sayings with this reason. For my flesh is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede: that is, it hath truely and in deed, those properties, that any man would wish for in true meate. But the properties of true meate are, to be receiued into the bodie, and to be a medicine against death. If none be true meate, but that which is receiued into the body, then that which Sander so often calleth the fathers gift, the bread of life, which came downe from heauen is not true meate, for that he hath often saide, may be receiued by saith and spirit not entring into the body, yet thereof saith Christ, that he is the true bread. But Chrysostome vponupon these words, My flesh is meat in deede, &c. saith that it meaneth that flesh to be the true meat, which saueth the soule, or else he speaketh it to confirme them in the former words, that they should not thinke him to hauehave spoken in parables darkely, but that they shoulde knowe it to bee by all meanes necessarie, to eate his body, in Ioan. Hom. 46. He that granteth both these senses (saith Sander) must needes grant that the true eating of the flesh, standeth not for eating truely the signe of the fleshe, because hee spake not obscurely in parables. Verily he were worthy to weare a cockescombe, that would say true eating of the flesh, standeth for eating truely the signe of the fleshe. Against whome then doeth Sander fight, but against an idoll of his owne braine? but it is an obscure saying to put eating for beleeuing. I answere, Chrysostome speaketh of the meate, and not of the manner of eating: for if there be no obscuritie in the manner of eating, let Sander speake of his small conscience, when he saith the manner of eating to be vnderunder another kind, then it selfe is, which is most obscure and imperceptible. But if his flesh be called meate, because it must bee eaten bodily, wherefore then is his bloud called drinke in deed, which Sander holdeth not to be necessarie to be dronke bodily? For if his bloud in that sense be drinke in deede, it must be drunke in deede, and not eaten with the bodie. But Augustine, lib. 13. De ciuitate Dei. Cap …0. sayeth: Tanquam caetera, &c. That other trees of Paradise were a nourishment; the tree of life, a Sacrament: So that the tree of life should be taken to be after such a sort, in the bodily Paradise, as the wisedome of God is in the spirituall intelligible Paradise. Of which wisedome it is written, It is the tree of life, to all that embraece it. What can Sander make of this saying? As corporall tasting in the tree of life, was necessarie for the spirituall effect of incorruption, so Christes flesh must be corporally tasted that it maie be meate indeede. I denie the comparison, which shoulde be made of the tree with bread, and of life with Christe, and not of woode with the flesh of Christ. And it is certaine, that Augustine not only compareth the sacrament with the sacrament, but also calling Christ, the spirituall part of the sacrament, the wisedome of God, which is a tree of life to all that embrace him, signifieth that Christ is otherwise receiued, then with the mouth: for embracing is more aptly said to be with the armes of faith, then with the lippes of the body, who can not touch the wisedome of God. But Sander once againe to make his matter good, repeateth his ranke and rotten distinction of two giftes, two giuers, two manners of eating, true meate, and meate truely: affirming meate truely to bee because it is receiued in at the mouth, and goeth into the bodie, after such sort, as other meates doe, although it nourish spiritually. Where there is no effect of that he calleth meate truely, but it is by plaine wordes of the Chapter, ascribed to that which is called true meat, which he consesseth may be receiued onelyonly spiritually: euen the vertue of raising vp our bodies: for which cause hee woulde make the bodily eating to be necessarie. He that beleeueth in mee, hath life eternall, and I will raise him vp againe in the last day.
Afterwarde, he citeth Hilarie: who presseth the word verè against the Arrians. But yet Sander translateth him falsely. For to make it seeme, that Hilarie spake of such bodily eating as hee doeth, he turneth these words, Haec accepta atque hausta efficiunt: these thinges taken and swallowed: whereas he should say, these things, that is the flesh and bloud of Christ, being taken and drunken, do cause this, that both Christ is in vsus, and wee in him, which must needes be taken for eating and drinking spiritually: For eating & drinking his flesh corporally, Sander confesseth to hauehave no such effect. Howe Christ tarieth in vsus naturally, and how we truely vnderunder a mysterie take the flesh of his bodie, I hauehave spoken before, and these places of Hilarie are discussed more at large in mine aunswere to Heskins, lib. 2. Cap. 20. & 2…. by which it may appeare, that Hilary taught no corporall maner of receiuing, but sub sacramento carnis communicandae, vnderunder a sacrament of his flesh to be communicated, verè, sub mysterio, truly, vnderunder a mysterie, and so as therebie Christ of necessitie dwelleth in vsus and wee in him. The last auctor is Gregory Nyssenus in vita Mosis. Puro defaecató que animo coelestem cibum sumere, &c. To take the heauenly meate with a pure and cleane minde. The which meate (sayth he) no sowing brought forth vntounto vsus by the art of tilling the grounde. But it is breade prouided for vsus without seede, without sowing, without any other worke of man, It flowing from aboue, is founde in the earth for the bread which came downe from heauen, which is the true meate, which is obscurely ment by this Historie of Manna, is not a thing without a bodie. For by what meanes can a thing without a body, be made meate vntounto the body? The thing which is not without a body, is by all meanes a bodie. Here (saith Sander) Nyssenus proueth the truth of Christes body, by the truth of the eating thereof, which must be really taken into our bodies, by our mouthes, or else Nyssenus faileth in his whole discourse: which is a shamelesse manifestly. For Gregory saith expressely, we muste take that heauenlie meat with a pure and cleane minde of taking it into our bodies, by the mouth he speaketh not. He gathereth that Christes body is a true body, not because it is bodily eaten, but because it is meate vntounto our bodies, which yet as spiritual meate nourisheth spiritually, as Sander confessed euen nowe. How strong the argumen… of Nyssenus is, I force not, but he neither affirmeth, neither any thing can rightly bee gathered out of him, which we doe not confesse and acknowledge in as ample maner as he, That Christ hath a true body, and that his flesh is heauenlie meate indeede, to nourish the whole man, which must be receiued with a pure and cleane minde, not put in at our mouthes, nor swallowed downe our throates.