Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 10
CAP. X.
The reall presence of Christes bodie and bloud, and the proper meaning of his words, is proued by the cōferēce of holie scriptures, Sander.taken out of the newe testament, and speaking of our Lords supper.
The places that he will conferre, are three: first, Iohn. 6. The breade which I will giuegive, is my fleshe: and my Fulke.fleshe is meate indeede. The second, Math. 26. Take, eate, this is my bodie, and, this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude. The thirde, 1. Cor. 10. The chalice of blessing which wee blesse, is it not the communicating of Christs bloud▪ And the breade which wee breake, is it not the communicating of the bodie of our Lord? Of these sentences Sander will conferre euerie word together which is not the right order of conference of scripture, to conferre the wordes whereof some are proper, some are figuratiue: but to conferre the Logicall sense of diuers places together, which either are both manifest in their seueral senses, or else may be made open by the circumstances of the places. But to folowe Sanders conference. In the first sentence he saith, The bread which I will giuegive, is described in the supper, by these wordes, Take, eate (this:) and in S. Paul is called, The breade which wee breake. But I vtterly denie, that the wordes of Christ in Saint Iohn, are all one with those of the supper. And therefore the referring of this to an eateable thing or foode &c is not shewed by that conference. But S. Paul and Christ. Matth. 26. speake in deede both of one matter, namely by the sacrament: Christ in S. Iohn speaketh of that meate which tarrieth to life euerlasting, but the sacramentall meate doth not so: for according to the earthly parte of it, as Origen affirmeth, it goeth the same way that all other meates doe. Ille cibus qui sanctificatur, &c. That meate which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, according to that which it hath material, goeth into the bellie, and is cast out into the dunghill, Origen, in Matth, cap. 15. And according to the heauenly part which is the body of Christ, by the Papists confession, it tarieth not in the wicked, nor in the godly in substance, but in effect as Sander tolde before, therefore Christ in S. Iohn speaketh not of the sacramentall meate.
Secondly, the breaking of the bread, which is done before the wordes which the Papistes account the onelyonly wordes of consecration can shewe the pronowne this, to signifie no materiall substance but breade: although Sander affirme, the breaking to be after, because it is so vsed in the popish Masse. Againe when the Apostle saith the bread which we break, he speaketh plainly of a thing that is broken actually, but so is not the body of Christ: as for Sanders shift of that foode, and that eatable thing, which we breake, is but a cloake of words, for if yt foode be the natural bodie of Christ, and that foode is naturally broken, then the naturall bodie of Christ, is naturally and really broken. Last of all, ye conference of this and this cuppe, to prooue that this, meaneth generally ye substance vnderunder this, is not worth a chippe, for these wordes this cuppe, do not meane a generall metaphysicall substance, but the wine in this cuppe which is also called the fruit of the vine, and therfore This in the other saying, signifieth yt substance only, which was in his hand, which was bread, and by their owne doctrine could be no other substance but bread, before hoc est corpus meum were saide all out, ouer it. The verbe, is, in the words of Christ, The bread which I will giuegive, is my flesh, although it respect the naturall flesh of Christ, yet it prooueth not, that the verbe, is, in the supper must be referred to the sonne, more then the same verbe in Saint Paul the Rocke was Christ: yet because you may see what a foolish conference Sander maketh of wordes, I will reason with him in his owne sense, and ouerthrowe him in his owne conference.
I say not (saith Sander) that the bread shalbe, but the bread is my flesh. If the bread is his flesh, then his flesh is the bread: and if the worde, bread, signifie an eatable thing, as we hauehave bene often told, then ye flesh of Christ is an eatable thing, when he so saith: and consequently, the flesh of Christ, which he said he would giuegive for the life of the world, might be eaten before the institution of ye Sacrament. The word cōmunicating, is the next matter of conference, which being vsed of S. Paul, doeth interprete the verbe Is, to signifie a substantiall, and not an accidentall being: for communicating doeth shewe, that all thing is common betweene it and Christes flesh: no diuision, no separation, no distinction commeth betweene these two, but a bar… signe of bread can make no such communicating, because it is cleane of another kinde, &c. That Sanders argument may be the stronger, he disputeth against that often times, which wee vtterly denie. For we neuer saide, that naturall bread or a bare signe, can make vsus to hauehave communion with Christ, but the verie bodie & bloud of Christ, yet not corporally but spiritually ioyned vntounto vsus, of which communicating, the bread and wine are effectuall seales & sacraments. As for Sanders assertion, of communicating to signifie all thing common betwene Christ and vsus, not only without diuision, but euen with out distinction, is horrible heresie, and detestable blasphemie. Saint Iohn, Ep. 1. Cap. 1. vseth the same worde often, saying, that wee hauehave foreign communicating with God the father, and his sonne Iesus Christ, hauehave wee then all thing common with God the father, so that ther is no distinction betweene vsus and him? O intollerable blasphemie! The same Apostle saith, wee hauehave foreign communicating one wt another, by which he not only sheweth, that the worde of communicating, signifieth not all that which Sander saith it doeth: but also teacheth, that our communicating with Christ, and with ye members of Christ, is spirituall, whereof S. Paul speaketh, 1. Cor. 10. We being manie, are one bodie, &c. And last of all, that wee hauehave this foreign or communicating by other meanes then by receiuing the Sacrament. That wee hauehave seene and heard, saieth Saint Iohn, wee preach vntounto you, that you also may hauehave communicating with vsus, & that our communicating may be with the father and with his sonne Iesus Christ. Againe, if we walke in the light, as he is light, we hauehave communicating one with another, and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne, doeth purge vsus from all sinne.
The last wordes of conference, are bodie and bloud, for which he heapeth vp so many texts, as they are named in, and more then either they are named & meant in, to proue that bodie and bloud stand not for signe or figure of bodie and bloud, and in the ende concludeth, that because these wordes are taken properly, therefore, to defend the wordes of Christes supper to be figuratiue, is ignorance in Grammar and Logike, blindnesse in diuinitie, malice inexcusable in the day of iudgement. But so long as it is but Sanders sophisticall conclusion, it is little to be regarded. what Logike, diuinitie, or conscience he hath that reasoneth thus, let all the Logicians, diuines, and men of good conscience consider, vntill Christ come and iudge all things. The worde bodie in this saying: This is my bodie, is not figuratiue, therefore the whole saying is not figuratiue. This, signifieth a generall thing, and not that thing in his hand: Is, declareth that to be presently, which is not vntill all the wordes be said: bodie, is taken properly: Therefore the sense of this whole saying, vttered together, cannot be figuratiue. But nowe we shall see conference of other places of scripture. It is euident (he saith) that Iohn is not Elias, and vseth many arguments to proue it: yet will he admitte no arguments out of the present words, This is my bodie, to prooue that the saying is figuratiue, as well as, This is Elias. And yet there is more oddes betweene the bodie of Christ, and naturall bread, then (hee saith) is manifest betweene Iohn and Elias. Secondly, The rocke was Christ, must needes be figuratiue, because it speaketh of two diuerse natures: as though bread and ye body of Christ were not two diuerse natures. But there is no conuersion of any rocke into Christ: for Christ did neither say of the rocke, This is my body, nor cōmand vsus so to say. Seeing the holy ghost saieth, the rocke was Christ: who doubteth, but that it was so by the word of Christ, although not expressed by Moses? And seing the Apostle speaketh so, in the time past, who will denie but that Moses or any man by the authority of Gods wordes, at such time as the Israelites did drinke of it, might hauehave said of the rocke: This is Christ?
The other places which proue, ye absence of Christ in his humane nature frō the world, as the poore ye shall hauehave alwaies, but me you shall not hauehave alwaies, He is risen, he is ascended into heauen, he sitteth at the right hand of God, &c. Sander saith, they denie not his inuisible presence in the Sacrament, nether is any thing impossible to God, and Christ sitting in heauen is almighty, &c. But Christ doth not only tell his Apostles, yt they shal see him no more after his ascension, saying, I goe to my father, and you shal see mee no more, Iohn 16. ver. 10. but also he telleth them plainely, and without any parable, as they confesse, that he leaueth the world and goeth to his father. Io. 16. ver. 20. whereas if he had saied, I departe out of the worlde, when he onelyonly departed out of sight, and purposed still to be present inuisibly, he had not spoken plainely, but very darkely. Whereas Chrysostom de sacerd. lib. 3. saith, it is a great miracle, that he which sitteth with his father in heauen, at the same instant is touched with the handes of all men, and deliuereth him selfe to those that will touch and embrace him. It is manifest, he speaketh of the heauenly mystery figuratiuely. For immediatly before he saith: when thou seest turbam circumfusam, pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rub…fieri, &c. the people standing about to be dipped and made redde with that precious bloud: doest thou thinke thou art still among mortall men, and standest vponupon the earth? Art thou not rather immediatly remoued into the heauens? Doest thou not casting away all cogitation of flesh, with naked soule and pure minde, looke rounde about vponupon those thinges that are in heauen? These wordes declare plainelye, that Chrysostome dreamed not of transubstantiation, but spake of a spirituall handling and receiuing of Christ, as of a spirituall dipping and making redde the people with his pretious bloud, and of feeding on Christ in heauen by faith. And so it is more wonderfull, that wee in body remaining on the earth, doe feede on Christ sitting in heauen, not by bringing him downe vntounto vsus, but by lifting vsus vp vntounto him. The places of scripture that Sander quoteth, as perteining to the supper, although they all pertaine not vntounto it, yet when he can make any argument out of any of them for his carnall manner of presence, I shall easily answere it.