Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 2
Hesk.The second Cha. expoundeth the sixt of S. Ioh according to the letter
Fulke.The summe of this literal exposition is this, that three sundry breades are mentioned by Christe in this sixte of Iohn, that is, ye bread Manna, the bread the sonne of God, and the bread the flesh of Christ, and yt these three breads are distincted both in nature and in time, in whiche they were giuen. For Manna was a corporall food giuen of old time in the wildernes. The second bread, the godhead of Christ, being an eternall and spirituall substance, Christ saith his father doth giuegive, in the present tence, and that he is the bread of life, and requireth beleefe in him which is proper to God onelyonly. The third breade, is the fleshe of Christ, which he will giuegive for the life of the world, speaking in the future tence, and is meant of the sacrament. And this he dare auouch, to be the natiue & true vnderstanding of this scripture. But sauing his authoritie, there are but two breades spoken of in this Chapter, namely Manna, and the bread of life, which is not the diuinitie of Christ separated from his flesh, nor his flesh separated or distincted from his godhead, but euen his quickening & spiritual flesh, which being vnited to his eternal spirit, was by the same giuen for the life of the world, not in ye sacrament, but in the sacrifice of his bodie & bloud on the crosse, and is daily sealed and testified vntounto vsus by the sacrament of his bodie and bloud ministred according to his holie institutiō. And this I dare auouch to be the true & natiue sense of this scripture, both by the plain circumstances of the same, and by the iudgement of the best approued ancient writers. And first to take away as wel the vain supposed distinction of time, in which the two later breads are said to be giuen, as also to proue that they are but one bread: our sauior Christ him selfe after he hath promised to giuegive the bread, which is his flesh, for the life of the world, and declared what fruite commeth to them that eate his fleshe, and drinke his bloude, &c. in the 58. verse he concludeth and sayeth plainly: that it is the same breade that came downe from heauen, and that who so eateth of this breade, shall liue eternally. Secondly, that the promise of giuing his flesh, is not to be restrayned to the giuing of the sacrament: his wordes are plaine, that he will giuegive his fleshe for the life of the worlde, which all true Christians will acknowledge to hauehave beene perfourmed in the sacrifice of his death, and not at his last supper. Finally, that his flesh must not bee separated from his spirit, nor his spirit from his flesh, he doth as plainly teach vsus, when he affirmeth yt it is the spirite yt quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, & yt except we eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, we hauehave no life in vsus. For neither the flesh profiteth, but as it is made quickening by the spirite, neither do we participate the life of his spirite, but as it is communicated vntounto vsus by his fleshe, by which we are made fleshe of his fleshe, and bone of his bone: which holie mysterie, is liuely represented vntounto vsus in the blessed sacrament. And this your aduersaries confesse (Maister Heskins) not denying (as you charge them) that any one worde of that Chapter perteineth to the sacrament, but affirming the sacrament to bee a seale of the doctrine, which is deliuered in that Chapter, and not otherwise. The iudgement of the olde writers consonant to this vnderstanding, shall followe afterwarde in confutation of M. Heskins vngodly and hereticall distinction, not of the two natures in Christ, but of participation of the one without the other, which hee maketh by his two last breades.