This is M. B. his first general principle and ground vvherein are conteyned al his first kind of arguments in number 3. of vvhich one is here proposed already For out of this philosophical principle Euery humaine body must have these in separable qualities he argueth 1. that Christs body must be in a certain place 2. that it must be finit and circumscribed which as he vseth it is al one vvith the former and therefore I vvil ioyne them together The 3. that it must â—e visible and palpable Let vs now first a litle examine this his principle or philosophical rule and after descend to the particulars These 3. properties are inseparable to euery body saith he If he meane of al bodies vniuersally it is not true For nether the element of ayer vvhich is a true body is palpable and visible much lesse the element of fier above the ayer nor the vvhole vvorld it self nor the first heaven vvhich conteyneth in it al thing is in a certain place as common philosophie and Aristotle defineth a place and as al other bodies are in a certain place If he meane of humaine bodies as he seemeth and his discourse and application pretendeth then is it most false that these properties agree to the body of man quarto modo as the Logicians say For they agree to the body of a horse and an ox of every stone and tree as vvel as to the body of a man And therefore in so speaking he speaketh not like a LogiciaÌ„ nor like a reasonable man If he say at lest these are properties necessarie to everie mans body and vnseparable and so they are proper to it some way at lest secuÌ„do modo as the Logicians say as now he speaketh more truly and by ordinarie course of nature they are in deed necessarie and vnseparable so yet they are no more necessarie to the body of man then it is to the same body of man to eate to drinke to take rest to sleepe to encrease to decrease to tend to corruption to take the nature and frame of his body from a father and mother And the philosophers vvho knew nothing of faith nor the resurrection of humane bodies to life eternal and by humane reason and vvit assigned to humane bodies according to the drift of humane reason of the course of nature and this vvorld those 3. properties vvhich M. B. noteth vvould never haue denyed these other which I adioyne to be as necessarie and inseparable as those For albeit Adam and Eve vvere made vvithout father and mother vvhich both after vvere as other bodies finite in a certain place and so forth yet that creation is a matter of faith not of philosophie that very creatioÌ„ both of man beast vvas a greater miracle is more repugnant to nature then a body to be invisible or vvithout a certaine place or one body to be in two places and so that creation or production may stand vvith the rest for an exaÌ„ple able to control al that M. B. saith And if by these properties as necessarie to humane bodies or more then those of M. B. vve may not measure the divine and glorious body of our Saviour now sitting at the right hand of his father in heaven for there it nether eateth nor drinketh nor sleepeth nor encreaseth nor decreaseth nor tendeth to corruption nor vvhen it vvas framed in this vvorld toke it any part froÌ„ a father vvhich no humane perfit body euer vvanted much lesse may vve subiect that body to those other philosophical qualities And M. B. can never prove to me out of any probable vvriter that any man in this vvorld lived vvithout those qualities vvhich I specifie vvhereas if he vvil credit Plato and Cicero and some other both auncient and late vvriters he shal fynd that one Gyges of Lydia in Asia Minor lived there a long time as true a man as M. B. and yet vvhen he pleased invisible by vertue only of a pretious stone vvhich he had in a ring vvhereof came the proverbe Annulus Gygis wel knowen among the learned VVhich vvhether it be true or no as I vvil not dispute yet pretious stones and perfect magicians and naturalists can do perhaps as great a vvonder as this so hereof may be conceived that vvise and sober men thought not that to be a matter so vnpossible as now these great sacramentarie Theologes beare vs in hand And thus much being forewarned of the truncke of M. B. his phil sophical tree let vs come to take a better vew of the 3. branches vvhich spring thence The first is Christs body being the body of a man is so of necessitie limited to the â—eâ—â—en place that while it is there it can not be els where â—â—w prove â—ow this necessitie to folow the body of Christ by any Theological argument Reade Austin say yow writing to Dardanus and speaking of the same body of Christ Take away a certain rome from the bodies and they bal he in no place and if they be in no place they are not â—he same Austin writing vpon Iohn in his 30. treatise The body saith he in which the lord rose of necessitie must be in one place but his divine efficacie and nature is eâ—ery where And in his third epistle he sais how ever a body be great or smale he must occupie the bounds of a place And besides the historie of the Acts proves most evidently Christs body to be in a certain place Act. 3. 21. The wordes are VVhom the heauen must conteyne vntil the tyme that al things be restored Thus much for proofe of the first that Christs body is bound to a certain place For the second that Christs body being an humaine body is circumscribed leaving many doctors purposely I take me to Austin quoth M. B. who writing to Dardanus saith Christ to he every where as he is God but n only in heaven according to the nature of a true body And in his 146. epistle Beleeve Christs body to be in heauen o as it was in earth and when he ascended in to heaven VVhereof M. B. inserreth But it was circumscribed in the earth Ergo it is so in heaven and consequently it can not be in the masse both at one time This is al that M. B. alleageth out of Theologie for proof of his first principle vvhich albeit most sufficiently may be answered with one vvord that none of these places touch the purpose none of them speaketh of the matter here handled S. Austin in none of these places disputeth of Christs body in the sacrameÌ„t vvhich every vvhere he acknowlegeth but ether of coÌ„mon bodies in general as in his third epistle or of the conditions of Christs body according to the ordinarie course of nature not of this divine mysterie according to the rules of natural creation and proprietie not of Christs vvil and omnipotencie yet because there is somvvhat more to be considered in
for that his death passion is then called to memorie and thanks are yelded for so great a benefite Thus VVestphalus and much more to this purpose may the learned reader see in the same place Yet one other interpretation Zuinglius geueth of this vvord body vvhich VVestphalus mentioneth not vz. that the body of Christ in the Eucharist signifieth the church His vvords are VVhen as Paule 1. Cor. 10. saith that the bread which we receiue is the coÌ„munication of Christs body here it standeth for the coÌ„munication of the church for that by this meanes euery man approueth him self to the church and ingraffeth him self therein as it were by geuing an othe The same exposition he auoucheth in his Commentarie de vera falsa religione cap. de Eucharistia Thus Zuinglius VVestphalus in the place before noted alleageth one more exposition taken not from Zuinglius but Ioan. a Lasco whom our late king Edward the sixt created Superintendent of the congregation of straungers in London VVhich exposition is so much the more to be regarded because Caluin him self highly esteemeth it vvhereof thus vvriteth VVestphalus Albeit Caluin in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the first epistle to the Corinthians putteth it out of doubt that THIS HOC in Christs supper pointeth the bread yet that notwithstanding here he defen leth the contrarie opiof Ioanne a Lasco who in his booke of the sacraments of the church assureth that it pointeth not the bread but the whole forme and ceremonie the verie external action of the supper This glose of his reuerend brother that HOC doth not demonstrate bread but the external action of the supper Caluin honoreth as an Oracle from heauen VVhere by the vvay VVestphalus geueth vs a good example hovv much vve may esteeme the conference of places of scripture and interpretation there after made by the Zuinglians and Sacramentaries For saith he let this stand for good that the first particle HOC this according to Caluiâ— Ioannes a Lasco signifieth the external action Next vve must by like reason confesse that Est doth stand for Significat vvhich Zuingliê° proueth by a number of textes of scripture as before hath bene shevved and is after likevvise proued by M. B. Thirdly vve may not deny to Occolampadius like grace vvho saith that scripture al Antiquitie expounded the vvord Body corpus by a figure or signe of the body Let vs now in fine conioyne al together and thence wil arise this prodigious proposition Haec formâ— seu actio câ—nae significat figuram corporis Christi This forme ceremonie or action of the supper signifieth a figure of Christs body And if Christs body stand for the Church as the same Zuinglius sometimes affirmeth or his Passion or his Deitie then the sense is This action signifieth a figure signe of the church of Christs passion or Deitie so forth Al vvhich dravveth to this point first that from the sacrament Christs body is quit remoued and no maner of Christs presence least there at al more then in any other common action place or assembly of Christians Next that concerning any vvorke effect vertue or operation vvrought in the elements of bread and vvine by force of Christs vvords there is nothing done at al. Only in the mynd and vnderstanding of the còmunicants if they be vvel instructed somvvhat there may be perhaps For they coÌ„ming to receiue some perchance remember Christ other geue thanks for his death other thinke vpon his Deitie other vpon the church his mystical body and so â—orth ech hath some imagination one or other according as the preacher ether then at that instant warneth them or as euery man by some fore-conceiued opinion directeth him self and so the bread becoÌ„meth to them a symbole a memorie a signe a thankes-geuing c. according as euerie man is affected ¶ For this the discrete reader vvho coveteth to knovv truly the opinion of our aduersaries whereof in a maner al dependeth must diligently note remember that as the auncient Primitiue church bishops thereof which in most plaine and sincere maner confesse the real presence of Christs body and blud in the Sacament attribute that grace operation to the force of Christs vvord so the Zuinglians or Sacramentaries vvho denie that presence ake the contrarie course flatly resolue the vvords of Christ to vvorke nothing but to be as idle and vnprofitable as if they vvere neuer vttered that for any thing added to the supper by them as good it vvere to reade no chapter at al or any chapter of the bible that if ye please of Christs genealogie in the first of S. Matthevv as the 26. vvords of Christs InstitutioÌ„ Concerning the fathers and auncient church their faith is sufficiently knovven by their manifold most plaine confessions For instruction of the simple I vvil recite the sayings of a fevv Iustinus the martyr in his second Apologie for the Christians made to the Romain Emperour Antoninus vvriteth thus As by the word of god our Sauiour Christ Iesus was incarnate and for our saluation toke flesh and blud euen so by the worde of God with prayer we are taught that of vsu il bread wine is made the flesh blud of the same incarnate Christ Iesus S. Ambrose in a long chapiter by many examples proueth this force and povver of Christs vvord to conuerte the elements of bread and vvine in to his body and blud His vvords are Thou wilt say perhaps how is this the body of Christ whereas my eyes teach me the contrarie He ansvvereth How many examples do we bring to proue that not to be in the Sacrament which nature hath framed but that which benediction hath consecrated And after a number of examples taken out of the old Testament wherein the nature of things hath bene altered of Aarons rod turned in to a serpent of the riuers of Aegipt turned in to blud of the red sea diuided and standing stedfast like a wal of the riuer Iordan turned backe to his fountayne of these he inâ—erreth If then the blessing or prayer made by man were able to chaunge nature what shal we say of the Diuine consecration where the very words not of man but of Christ our lord and Sauiour do worke For the Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ And if Elias speach were of such force that it caused fier to come from heauen shal not Christs speach be of suficient force to alter the nature of these elements bread and wine Thou hast read in the works of al the world He spake the word and they were made he commaunded and they were created Then the word of Christ which was able to make somwhat of nothing can it not change that which already is and hath an essence in to that which it is not c. And this self same reason taken from the creation he vseth
shew him self to ignorant so that in deed he seemeth not to know vvhat a contradiction meaneth yet he so behaveth him self as that he may plainly learne it by his owne answere to this supposed argument For vnto it he geveth 3. answeres two of vvhich are directly contradictorie one to the other the third hangeth in the middest betwene both and may take part of ether If saith he I denyed their consequent vvhich they never made they would be wel fasshed to prove it But the question standes no here whether God may do it or not but whether God wil it or may wil it And we say reverently that his maiestiâ— mâ—â— not wil it This is his first answere vvhich I account as a middle betwene two extremes not directly denying nor yet plainly graunting that God can do it but by a thoritie as it vvere of the Scottish 〈…〉 vvhich commaundeth in matters Ecclesiastical god is in manerly and reverent termes charged not to vvil it For his maiestie may not wil it saith M. B. But good Sir that we may vnderstand your further resolution let vs put the case as the church ever hath that God may wil it for that Christ vvho is true God did wil it as not only al Catholikes that ever vvere but also most Protestants and those the first founders of this new gospel beleeved Answere now directly and plainly yea or no can he performe it M. B. answereth no and that so Turkishly absurdely as vvithal he overthroweth the vvhole body of scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Reuclation For saith he many things God may not wil and then most assuredly he nether may nor can do them and they are reduced to two sortes First he may not wil things contrarie to his nature as to be changeable to decay Secondly he may not wil some things by reason of a presupponed condition as such things whereof he hath concluded the contrarie before of which sort this is For seing God hath concluded that al humane bodies and therefore the body of Christ should consist of organical parts and therefore be comprehended and circumscribed within one proper place therefore God may not wil the contrarie now and consequently can not make it vvithout quantitie vvithout place vvithout circumscription for this vvere to make it no body And to wil these things which are plaine coÌ„tradiceÌ„t in them selues god may not no more then it is possible for him to wil a lye Here is the conclusion that God can no more make Christs body remaining a body to be in 2. places then he can lye then he can be chaunged thâ—n he can decay be corruptible But to lye to be chaunged to decay are simply and flatly vnpossible for God Ergo it is simply beyond Gods power and abilitie to make the body of Christ in the sacrament This is his conclusion which if vve let to rest for a vvhile and examine the ground thereof a man shal quickly see that it is the very foundation of al Atheisme and Barbarisme For if God may not nor can alter the conditions and qualities of his creatures vvhich conditions he hath framed in them and so by such prosupponed condition concluded the contrarie before vvhereas he hath thus concluded the vvater to be liquid or fluent the fier to be hote and burne the S 〈…〉 to move perpetually and geve light creatures vvhich vve eate or vse in eating or vsing to consume and diminish vvaters not to flow out of thy and hard rocks and flints but to have other original beasts by nature dumb not to speake and so forth in a number of like incident every vvhere in the old and new Testament vvhat foloweth hereof but that by sentence of the Scottish coÌ„fistory and Seignorie God may not wil and God can not vvil nor do these things and therefore the red sea stood not stil and firme as a vval nor yet the river Iordan to yeld passage to the children of Israel the fier in the fornace of Nabuchodonosor vvhich so furiously burnt the Chaldeans could not be to Daniel and his 3. felowes according to the English translations as a cold wyel blowing so that one heare of their head vvas not burne the Sunne in the element at Iosuas commaundement did not stand stil nor vvas cleane destitute of light aâ— Christs passion the oyle of the vvidow of Sarephta vvas not every day eaten by Elias the vvidow and her sonne vvithout diminishing as nether for 40. yeres together in the vvildernes could the Israelites vveare their apparel vvithout vvasting consuming it it could not possibly be that a hard rocke in the vvildernes should yeld such abundaÌ„ce of vvater as satisfied many hundred thousands that Balaams asse spake c. For these be such things whereof God hath concluded the contrarie before in his general creation determining and binding them to other certain natural conditions and qualities as he hath the body of man to be visible local and circumscribed in one certain place And therefore God may no more wil these things which are plain contradicent in them selues one as much as the other then it is possible for him to wil a lye and then the scripture must lye downe right vvhich telleth vs al these lyes by M. B. his conclusion for vndoubted verities VVhat shal I speake of the new Testament vvhere this appeareth infinitely more VVhere every one of Christ his Apostles miracles are things done against the general order condition and qualitie vvhich God hath limited to his creatures Let the Christian reader carie away this only that this Satanical rule so vile and horrible that a Turke vvould never have put it downe quit destroyeth the two very fouÌ„dations heads and principal articles of the new Testament the incarnation of Christ and general resurrection vvhich Mahomet in his Alcoran confesleth most constantly For that every man consisting of body and sowle should to his humane nature have ioyned a particular a singular or individual subsistence vvhich Theologie calleth a persone or personalitie is far more necessarie more nigh more intrinsecal by gods special ordinance general creation more required to man then any thing that this ignoraÌ„t Calvinist obiecteth be it the conditioÌ„ of place or localitie or circumscriptioÌ„ or any other qualitie mentioned hetherto And yet our christian faith teacheth vs that Christ assumed the true nature of man a true sowle and body vvithout the persoÌ„ of maÌ„ And if M. B. know ought he knowes it to be Nestorianisme that is a denyal of Christs incarnation of the redemption vvrought by Christ God and man in one person to say that vvith the nature of man he assumed tooke the person of man Againe that one the self same man vvho died vvas resolved in to ashes 100. or 1000. yeres since shal in the end of the vvorld returne receive his perfect body