once And is it not as impossible then for one to bee in two places at once And it is impossible that one single effect should haue diuerse totall causes and impossible therefore that one and the same accident should bee in diuerse subiects And why not as impossible for one subiect to haue diverse accidents as diuerse seates sites qualities and quantities at once which Christsbody must needs haue iâ— it bee with vs in the Eucharist It is impossible saith Durand that one and the same thing should mooue two contrary wayes at once And It is impossible saith Aquinas that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuerse seuerall places at once And It is impossible that one and the selfe same thing should both rest and stirre at once And yet should Christs body if it were in the Host or if it were the very Host rather doe all this when at the same time it both resteth in the Pyx in one place and goeth in Procession in another place and is in diuerse processions or on sundry seuerall occasions carried contrary wayes to seuerall persons and places at the same instant No more therefore doe we curb or restraine Gods â—mnipâ—tency when we deny that a body can bee by any meanes in two distant places at once then they doe when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken And for the reason of our denyall let them heare be side Durands Aquinas his confession For one body saith hee to bee locally in two places at once it implieth a contradiction and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once no not by miracle neither For those things that imply contradiction God cannot do God therefore cannot make a body to bee locally in two places at once The very selfe same saith Aegidius too and Amolynus on him that although a thousand miracles were wrought nothing could bee effected that implyeth a contradiction as this doth CErtainely the holy Fathers doubted not to affirme that Christ left his body here on earth and yet assumed with him the same bodie into heauen hee held his body in his owne hands at his last Supper and distributed it severally to his Apostles as hath beene already out of S. Chrysostome S. Augustine and other holy Fathers formerly by me alleâ—dged Insomuch as Melancthon one of the maine pillars of Protestant Religion vnderstood the opinion of the holy Fathers so well in this point and attributed so much withall to Gods omnipotency as hee writeth thus of this very Argument I had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as Zwinglians doe that Christs body cannot bee but in one place at once And S. Augustine as Bellarmine prooueth was so farre from denying this to the bodie of Christ as he doubted whether the holy Martyrs may not be at the selfe same time in severall Churches and Memories erected of them albeit naturally no spirit nor body can bee more then in one place or remaine without some certaine place of beeing which latter is in the places ciced by this Minister out of him onely affirmed And if a perfect substance or nature as was the humanity of Christ could want the naturall personality and subsistence thereof supplyed by the divine person and hypostasis of the Sonne of God as our Christian faith teacheth vs why cannot in like manner by Gods omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remaine without actuall inhering and being in their naturall subiect His other Arguments page 15. are drops of an afterstorme and obiections gathered out of S. Augustine which doe onely prooue that Christ is not visibly but in heauen not denying his sacramentall beeing in many places as this Minister would haue him And surely our Saviour himselfe in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn verse 61. solueth this very obiection as S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when perceiving that his Disciples murmared at his promise of giuing his flesh for meate c. he said to them Doth this scandalize you If then you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where he was before c. As if hee had said Are you scandalised that I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food what then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I canso giue you my flesh when I â—…ll ascend to heauen and be absent so sarre from you § 2. THe places of the Fathers here pointed at were before answered where by him they were aâ— large alledged And howsoeuer Augustine spake modestly after his manner of a difficult Question not daring peremptorily to determine by what meanes that was effected that by diuers other meanes might be yet in his bookes against Faâ—stus the Manichie hee saith expressely and peremptorily that Christ in regard of his bodily presence could not bee at once in the Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the Crosse also as they absurdly imagined and maintained that he was And againe in his Comment aries on the Gospell of S. Iohn not as Bellarmine corruptly citeth him as hee doth also many others that Christs body in which he rose againe M AY be but as Peter Lombard and other of their owne Authors acknowledge him to say that it MVST be in one place howsoeuer his verity that is his Deitie be every where Yea discusing the question at large in one of his Epistles and hauing concluded the Negatiue hee saith that they take away the truth of his body that maintaine it to be in many places at once Whereas though immortality bee conferred on it yet nature is not taken from it To which purpose hee disputeth much of the nature of a true body and deliuereth those things which I presse out of him all which together with the testimonies of other of the Ancients this superficiall Answerer passeth ouer with sad silence onely boldly and bâ—asen facedly auouching that all that is alleadged out of Augustine prooueth nothing but this that Christ is not visibly but in Heauen Did hee thinke that his Reader would not cast an eye on them whem they were verbatim set downe before him § 3. Yea but our Saviour himselfe he saith solveth this Obiection Iohn 6. 61. as Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when hee saith Doth this scandalize you What if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where hee was before c as if hee had said Are you scandalized because I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food What then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I can so giue you my flesh when I shall ascend to heauen and be so farre aboue from you 1. Where Chrysostome thus expoundeth the place I know not Vpon the place I am sure he hath nothing but this that Christ by these wordes did intimate to them his Deitie Yea so Iansenius also saith that Chrysostome vnderstandeth these words
eate vnworthily of it as some did of the Manna and eternally died But heare we Augustine in a word what hee saith hereof and so learne we to expound Augustine and other the Ancients not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits but by Augustine himself The Sacrament hereof saith hee to wit of Christs body and blood and our vnion with either is taken at the Lords table by some to life by some to death But the thing it selfe whereof it is a Sacrament is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life by none to death And if of all to life by none to death then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any Diuision 14. LAstly when pag. 19 20 21 22 and 23. hee argueth that Christs body cannot be in the Eucharist first because then it should be broken as the bread is broken Secondly it should be subiect to many vndecencies as corruption putrefaction mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the Sacrament I answer him that Christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the Sacrament cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then Angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded or then the Maiesty of the diuine person in Christ was by thornes torne nayles pierced or other torments defaced for all such indignities and painfull alterations were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our Sauiour defaced vtterly by them and touched not immediately the diuine person albeit personally therein subsisting So all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our Sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places c. Such Arguments as these made against our Sauiours reall true presence in the Sacrament by our inconsiderate Aduersaries are like to those other Arguments wont to bee made by the Eutycheans Nestorians Arians and other ancient Heretickes against the diuinity of our Sauiour and personall vnion of two natures in him as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued that either God so vnited with man or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips thornes and nayles spet vpon buffeted and finally die in agonies and torments that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of God bite his flesh c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same as it is here in the Sacrament euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes or when in our stomacks wee receiue them or by fire wee consume them or â—…wise abuse theÌ„ Christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended and so not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them And holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the Son of God was pleased to institute this great Sacrament affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs haue iust reason to cry out his mercy and to admire his wisedome power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself as I may iustly call this Sacramentall presence or hiding of himselfe in this Sacrament to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him as also a louing spouse visiting embracing delighting adorning and enriching them with his presence daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer Sathan and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion and making vs also to triumph with him And whereas the Diuell once by his ministers Iewes and Gentiles caused his blood to be separated from his body he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the fâ—ce of his eternall Father for vs which is the declaring of the Lords death till he come mentioned by the Apostle MY last Argument is taken from those things that are done aboâ—… or may befall the consecrated creatures which if they be Christs body and blood must needs befall Christ as fraction corruption putrefaction mitebreeding mice eating c. To this he answereth 1. That though these things be done to or befall the Sacrament yet Christs body being now glorious and impassible and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present it can no more thereby be broken and abused then Angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded or Christs Deity was wounded or pierced on the Crosse. 1. We take what hee granteth Christs body is now glorious and impassible and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities as these creatures are and the one consequently is not the other Yea is Christs body it self impassible What is it then that as Origen speaketh goeth into the draught c. which this Defendant taketh no notice of because hee knoweth not what to say to it Or let him resolue what those ashes that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of that breed in the consecrated bread when either they burne it and so deale with it as they doe with Heretickes or reserue it ouer long 2. It is present in a spirituall manner Had hee but added onely he had marred all hee had beene a foule Hereticke and perchance might fare no better if he would stand to his words then this their little God almighty doth when he groweth hoary But is hee come to that now Christ is spiritually in the Sacrament What is become I maruell of that carnall and corporall presence then that they prate so much of and for want whereof they so much vilifie the Protestantical CoÌ„munion Or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare that those wordes of our Sauiour of eating his flesh Iohn 6. should be spiritually vnderstood 3. If these things cannot befall Christs body because it is after a spirituall manner present then belike these things may befall it yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner which Bellarmine granteth it is and they sticke not vsually to afifrme 4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there what is it that is there broken Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper at which time also his body was not indiuisible or impassible Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs body it selfe is sensually broken Where marke I pray you how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces as also of others that say that nothing is broken at all or nothing but accidents only here is not a word answered The hoast they say is Christs body and the Priest breaketh the hoast and yet he
place thus speaketh The heauenly bread that is the heauenly Sacrament which truly representeth the slesh of Christ is called the Body of Christ but improperly and therefore is it said In it owne manner but not in the truth of the thing but in a significant mystery So that the meaning is It is called the body of Christ that is it signifieth the body of Christ. Thus word for word the Glosse Thus you see what our very Aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words This is my body and that which may be gathered from them The wordes of Christ prooue not necessarily saith the Romish Cardinall that the bread is turned into Christs body And when the bread is called Christs body the meaning is saith the Popish Canonist that it signifieth Christs body And what is this but the very same that we say To conclude as Augustine well obserueth Christ saith Iohn is Elias and Iohn himselfe saith I am not Elias and yet neither of them crosse the other because Iohn spake properly and Christ figuratiuely So Christ saith This bread is my body in one sense and we in another sense that it is not his body and yet wee crosse not Christ because wee speake properly hee figuratiuely as the Glosse it selfe confesseth And on the other side they were false witnesses though they alledged Christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall Temple which hee meant of the mysticall Temple his humanity And so may others be though they alleadge Christs owne wordes of the bread being his body vrging that as spoken properly that by him was figuratiuely spoken If it be obiected that by this our deniall of Transubstantiation and of Christs corporall presence we make the Sacrament to be nothing but bare bread I answer that notwithstanding such Transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied yet it maketh the Sacrament no more to be but bare bread then it maketh the water in Baptisme to be but bare water because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it A piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the Princes Patent of pardon or other like deed is of farre other vse and farre greater efficâ—cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is though it be the very same in nature and substance with it and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse And so is the bread in the Lords Supper being a seale of Gods couenant and of Christs last will and Testament of faire other vse and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is though it be the same still in nature and substance with it and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated That which Pope Gelasius and Theodoret both expresly anouch Surely the Sacraments saith Gelasius which wee take of Christs body and blood are a diuine thing and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine Nature and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine but they abide still in the propriety of their owne Nature And certainely an image and similitude of Christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries And The mysticall signes saith Theodonet after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature but retaine still their former substance and figure and forme And againe the same Theodoret He that called that which is by nature his body wheat and bread and againe named himselfe a vine he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see with the titles of his bodie and blood not changing the nature of them but adding grace to it Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacraments of Christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood Ioh. 6. 51-58 True it is indeed that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of Christ and there bee such a corporall presence as Papists imagine it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the Sacrament And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon auoweth that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands and torne in pieces with mens teeth not sacramentally only but sensually and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned A sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion yea an horrible and an hideous speech full fraught I may well say though it proceeded from a Pope who they say cannot erre with extreame impiety and blasphemy and such as Christian eâ—res cannot but abhor to hear In so much that their owne Glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him Lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then Berengarius euer held But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another And this indeed must needs follow vpon the former The corporall presence of Christ in the thing eaten must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him and to prooue the same they presse commonly our Sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood Which as with some of the Ancients indeed they vnderstand of the Eucharist so they expound though without their consent therein of a corporall and carnall eating of Christs flesh But neither are those words of our Sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking nor doth Christ at all in that whole Discourse speake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist which was not then as yet instituted but of feeding on him spiritually by faith which is done not in the Sacrament onely but out of it also And first that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking it is aparent For it is a good and a sure Rule that Augustine giueth If in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech I need not apply this generall Rule to the point in hand Augustine doth it for mee Hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of Vnlesse you eate saith he the flesh of the Sonne of Man and drinke his blood you haue no life in you It seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing It is a figuratiue speech therefore commanding vs to communicate with Christs passion and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. So that this place by Augustines Rule and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely and doth
a Serpent in so much that Moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense to the sight as in the water turned into blood to the taste as in the water turned into wine Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter We see no flesh there we taste no blood there Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme For we see Bread and Wine there and we finde the true taste of either And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste onely because they say it That which you see saith Augustine is bread and a cup that which our eyes also informe vs that which your faith requireth you to be informed of is that the bread is Christs body and the cup his blood which they cannot be but figuratiuely as Bellarmine before confessed A mysterie we acknowledge we deny a miracle they may be honoured saith Augustine as religious things not wondred at as strange miracles saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme as in the Eucharist And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either It is a rule saith the Schooleman that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally we should not haue recourse to a miracle or to what God can doe 3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments That which the Apostle saith of one Sacrament to wit Circumcision is true of all for there is one generall nature of all Sacraments are Signes A Sacrament saith Augustine that is a sacred Signe And Signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments Now this is the Nature of Signes that they are one thing and signifie another thing that they signifie some other thing beside themselues or diuers from themselues And in like manner saith Augustine Sacraments being Signes of things they are one thing and they signifie some other thing But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood as hath beene before shewed and the Auncients generally auow And therefore are they not essentially either They signifie Christs body and blood and what they signifie they are not And It is a miserable seruitude as Augustine wel saith for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified 4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body euen after his Passion and Resurrection Christs naturall Body hath flesh blood and bones the limmes and lineaments of an humane body such as may be felt and seene to be such This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead when they misdoubted some delusion Behold mine hands and my feete for it is I my selfe Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue But that which is deliuered handled and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing It is not in any wise saith Epiphanius equall or like vnto Christ either his humanitie that is clad with flesh or his Deitie that is inuisible or to the lineaments of his limmes For it is round senselesse and liuelesse as Christ himselfe is not It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that Christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord after that the words of Consecration be once vttered they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his Body As if to this day saith Pope Lee he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth as he spake there to his Apostles Why sticketh our vnderstanding where our sight is our Teacher I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case I feare least we seeme to wrong our sâ—â—ser in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said 5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies Christs body is in Heauen from whence wee looke for him And there is to abide till the end of the world Now a true naturall body as Christs still is cannot be in two much lesse in twentie or rather in twentie hundred places at once which yet Christs body must needs be if that be true that they say Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both in Paradise and in heauen at once supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places howsoeuer with the Apostle Paul they are not maketh answer that he could not as he was man or in his humanitie his body and his soule though he might as he was God or in his Deitie that is euery where And he addeth The same Iesus Christ is euery wherein his Deitîe but in heauen in his humanitie And further in his discourse hereof saith he Take spaces and places from bodies and they will be no where and because they will be no where they will not be Take bodies from qualities and wanting wherein to subsist they must needs cease to be and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found as before that haue no subiect body to subsist in being not the qualities of Christs body and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in for they are the qualities of Bread and yet there is no bread there if they say true to beare them Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place that they cannot at the same time or so long as they keepe that place be in any other place but it And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus Christs body saith Leo in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies And therefore Christ saith Gregorie Naziâ—nzen in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place in regard of his spirit or his Deitie he is not circumscribed nor conteined in any place And Augustine Our Lord is aboue but our Lord the Truth is here too For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place but his Truth that is his diuine power is diffused into all places And therefore Doubt not saith he but that the Man Christ is now there from whence he is to come He is gone vp into heauen and thence he shall come as he was seene to goe thither the Angel saith it that is in the same forme and substance of flesh which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it yet he hath
but bare bread which by the instance of the other Sacrament of Baptisme besides other proofes I shew euidently to be otherwise as if hee thought that like an hare by iâ—mping and wheeling to and fro hee should keepe himselfe safe from being traced and taken when either he reported grosse vntruths or dissembled those things that it stood him vpon to giue answere vnto if he would either make good their cause or ouerthrow ours He runneth backe to an allegation of Tertullian and then forward againe to Theodoret c. and if his words may beare weight with vs he would make vs beleeue that this Doctrine of my Master Caluine if like a dull Scholler I had sooner vnderstood him would salue many of my Obiections as namely that of Tertullian This is my Body that is a figure of my body and the like speech of Augustine and what I cite out of Gratian to the like purpose c. Surely this man was of that opinion that Polybius saith some are who thinke other men cannot see them if they winke themselues The Question is whether our Sauiours words This is my Bodie may not be or are not to be figuratiuely vnderstood not whether the bread and wine be bare Signes or no which none say but this shamelesse wretch contrary to mine expresse words affirmeth me to affirme This being the Question I produce Tertullian who precisely so expoundeth them This is my Body that is a figure of my body I produce Augustine who not onely doth the like but rendreth a reason also why he so doth to wit because Signes and Sacraments are called vsuaelly by the names of those things that they signifie and represent I produce the Glosse on Gratian that saith It is called Christs body improperly not in the truth of the thing itselfe but in a significant mysterie and that when it is said that it is called Christs bodie the meaning of the words are that it signifieth Christs bodie All which produced to prooue that our Sauiours words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely which how pregnantly they doe prooue he cannot but see that will not wilfully winâ—ke he can giue no answer vnto but saith onely they may be soâ—…d with that which Caluine saith that they are not bare signes which neither is denied nor is any part of the Argument here in hand § 4. Thus hauing leapt a page backe he now iumpeth againe as faâ—re forward where he lighteth againe vpon Pope Gelasius for so is his worke stiled in all editions of him and so by Fulgentius he is prooued to be howsoeuer they would faine shift him of because he is so expressely against their Transubstantiation as he is also against their mangling of the Sacrament and giuing the bread without the Cup which he condemneth as grosse Sacriledge and with him vpon Theodoret that speaketh in effect the same with him Theodoret and Gelasius both auerre that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onely but the same Nature and Substance Can any thing be more plaine or any testimony more pregnant Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not aneuasion for it such as it is For saith he Theodoret and Gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance but the Accidents that is the shape and outward â—oâ—me c. onely remaine vnaltered They say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too And this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vs that they meane contrary that they retaine the same shape but not the same substance It is a cursed glosse they say that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the glosse that this Sophisâ—er giueth Gelasius and Theodoret not corrupting onely but directly crossing that that they say denying them to say that that in precise tearmes they do The Substance say they Not the Substance saith he The Substance say they that is The Accidents saith he Not vnlike that Glosse on Gratian that expoundeth We ordaine that is We â—brogate or disannull If this be not a most sorry and senselesse shift I know not what is But yet will you see another as grosse as the former By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substances of Bread and Wine but the Accidents onely for either those then or else nothing at all 1. Here is a new distinction betweene the Elements of Bread and Wine and the Sacramentall signes in the Eucharist And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true neither Bread nor Wine are euer or euer were Signes of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist though the Auncients commonly so tearme them For before Consecration they are not and in Consecration they cease to be as they say and after Consecration they cannot be because they haue now no being and so consequently they neuer are 2. Here is a strange Interpretation and a most abfurd assertion The Sacramentall Signes that is the Accidents retaine still their Substance that is their Accidents This is like Christs blood in his blood that wee had a little before These are abstruse riddles indeede and it is no great maruell if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them 3. Will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is Theodoret and Gelasius saith Bellarmine whom hee learned some of this from teach the very selfe same thing Now looke what Theodoret calleth the mysticall Signes that Gelasius tearmeth expressely Bread and Wine By the mysticall Signes therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant not the Accidents as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith of either § 4. Yea but if Theodoret had beene fully cited all had vtterly beene ouerthrowne and the Ministers hereticall and fraudulent purpose of citing him had beene defeated If lying and out-facing would serue the turne this man would be sure euer to giue his Aduersarie the ouerthrow Heare you but Theodoret at large and then iudge if this man haue not either a brazen brow or a leaden braine or both The worke of Theodoret is a Dialogue wherein hee bringeth in disputing an Orthodoxe Diuine against an Hereticke that held that after Christs resurrection his Hemanitie lost it owne nature and his flesh was turned into his Deitie in the same manner as these Transubstantiators now say that the Bread in the Euchorist looseth it owne nature and is really changed into Christs naturall body In debating of this Question they light vpon the Eucharist and fall to dispute how the Bread is there said to bee Christs body and what change is wrought on it The Hereticke would haue it changed to fit his turne as our Papists now hold The Orthodoxe Diuine saith it is no more turned into Christs body then Christs body is now turned in heauen into his Deitie But you shall haue them both verbatim in their owne words Orthodox Tell me the mysticall Signes which are offred God by Gods Priests what say
you are they Signes of Heretike Of the Lords Body and Blood Orthodox Of a body that is truly or of one that is not truly Heretike Of one that is truly Orthodox Very well For of the Image there must needs be some Originall For Painters imitate nature and draw Images of such things as are seene Heret True Orthodox If then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body then the Lords body is a true body still not changed into the Nature of the Deity but filled with Diuine glorie Heret You haue in good time made mention of the diuine Mysterie for euen thereby will I shew you that the Body of our Lord is turned into another Nature Answer you therefore my Question Orthodox I will Heretike What call you the gift that is offred before the Priests Inuocation Orthodox I may not tell openly because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated Heretike Answere then aenigmatically Orthodox The foode that is made of certaine graine Heret The other Signe how call you it Orthodox By that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke Heret But after sanctification how doe you call them Orthodox The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. Heret And doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of Christs body and blood Orthodox I doe beleeue so Heret As then the Signes of the Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests prayer but after it are changed and become another So the Lords body also after his Assumption is changed into a diuine Substance Orthodox You are taken now in a net of your owne weauing For the Mysticall Signes doe not after Sanctification depart from their owne Nature For they remaine still in their former Substance and figure and forme and may be seene and touched as before But they are vnderstood to be that which they are made and they are beleeued and adored or reuerenced as being those things that they are beleeued to be Compare then the Image with the Originall and you shall see the Similitude For it is meete that the Figure bee like to the Truth For that Body hath indeede its former forme and figure and circumscription and to speake in a word bodily Substance But since the Resurrection it is become immortall and such as no corruption or destruction can befall and it is vouchsafed to sit at Gods right-hand and is worshipped of euery creature as being called the Lords naturall Bodie Heretike Yea but the mysticall Signe changeth his former Name For it is not any more called as it was before but it is called a Body In like manner therefore should the Truth be called God and not a Body Orthodox Me thinkes you are very ignorant For it is not onely called a Body but it is called Bread of Life So the Lord himselfe called it And moreouer the Body it selfe we call a diuine Body and a quickning Body and the Lords Body and teach that it is not the common Body of any man but the Body of our Lord Iesus Christ who is God and Man For Iesus Christ is yesterday and to day the same and for euer Will you heare more yet of Theodoret In his first Dialogue out of which I cite also one or two Sentences which this scambling Answerer hath not list it seemeth to take notice of he bringeth in the same Parties thus discoursing together Orthodox Do you not know that the Lord called himselfe a Vine Heretike I know that he said I am the true Vine Orthodox And how call you the juice of the fruite of the Vine Heretike Wine Orthodox When the souldiers opened Christs side with a speare what saith the Euangelist did then issue on t Heretike Water and Blood Orthodox The Patriarch Iacob then calleth Christs blood the blood of the Grape For if Christ be called a Vine and the frnite of the Vine and streames of blood and water issuing out of Christs side trickled downe his whole Body he is fitly said by him to wash his coate in wine and his raiment in the blood of the Grape For as we call the mysticall fruite of the Vine after sanctification the Lords blood so doth he call the blood of the true Vine the blood of the Grape Heretike That which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen Orthodox Though the things said be sufficient yet I will adde another proofe Heretike You shall doe me a pleasure because the more profit in so doing Orthodox Doe you not know that God called his body Bread Heretike I know it Orthodox And else-where againe hee called his Flesh wheate Heretike I know that too For vnlesse the wheate corne saith he fall into the ground c. Orthodox Now in the deliuery of the Sacraments he called Bread his Body and that which is poured into and mixt in the Cup Blood Heretike He did so call them Orthodox Yea but that which by nature is his Body is also iustly tearmed his Body and in like manner his Blood Heretike It is acknowledged Orthodox Our Sauiour indeede hee changed the Names and imposed that Name on his Body that was the Name of the Symbole and Signe of it and on the Symbole or Signe he imposed that Name that is the Name of his Body And so hauing named himselfe a Uine he called that that was a signe Blood Heretike It is true that you say But why did he thus change the Names Orthodox Because his will was that those that are partakers of those diuine Mysteries should not attend the nature of the things that they see but for the change of the Names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought For hee that called that that by Nature is his Body wheate and bread and againe named himselfe a Vine he honoured the Symboles and Signes that we see with the appellation of his Body and Blood not changing Nature but to Nature adding Grace And at length the Orthodoxe Diuine thus concludeth It is cleere that that holy Foode is a Symbole and a Signe of Christs body and blood the name whereof it beareth For our Lord when he had taken the Symbole or Signe said not This is my Deitie But This is my Bodie and againe This is my Blood and else where The bread that I will giue is my Flesh that I will giue for the life of the world You haue heard Theodoret at large It remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which I produce him for to wit that the bread wine in the Sacrament remaine for substance still the same and that the Bread is called Christs body figuratiuely as his body is else-where called Bread and the wine his blood figuratiuely as himselfe is tearmed a Vine Or to consider rather if you please because that any one at the first sight may see how fitly this mans explication of Theodoret agreeth with
who I pray you doubteth of or denyeth ought that is here said who teacheth men to speake otherwise then Christ euer taught but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated and of a body of Christ made of bread of Christs flesh contained in bread or vnder the accidents of bread and of his blood in the bread and his body by a concomitancie in the Cup c Who doubteth with vs of the truth of Christs body and blood For of the corporall presence of either in the Sacrament Hilarie hath not heere a word Or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries Christ is spiritually in vs and we in him Doth not the Apostle say of Baptisme that by it we are ingraffed into Christ and Chrysostome that by it we become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Hilaries scope is to shew that Christ is one with God and his Father and we one with him not by consent of will onely as some Heretikes said but by a true and reall vnion yet spirituall as his words implie when he saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him Vpon whinch wordes their owne Bishop Iansenius They saith hee that thus eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone or in the Eucharist are said to haue Christ abiding in them and to abide themselues in him in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of Christ whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature Yea those words of our Sauiour cannot be meant of Christ corporally receiued in the Eucharist nor could Hilarie so meane if he were otherwise of their minde appeareth For Christs body so taken as they imagine doth not abide long in those that so receiue it but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe I know not whither a while after Whereas by vertue of such receiuing Christ as our Sauiour there speaketh of We doe abide in him and he in vs that is we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto Christ and he vnto vs they are still Iansenius his tearmes and Hilarie also saith the same and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life as we doe by the eating of corporall meate that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it but life permanent and eternall Whence it is manifest also saith the same Author that all are not in this place said to eate Christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the Sacraments of his body and blood since that all such haue not Christ abiding in them But they eate his flesh and drinke his blood as he there speaketh who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the Crosse for the Saluation of mankinde and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life do either by such faith alone or in the holy Eucharist also receiue the Lord himselfe within themselues imbrace him and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire commeth to vs and is conferred on vs. Thus he by whose words it plainely appeareth that our abiding in Christ and Christ in vs which Hilarie from our Sauiour speaketh of dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the Sacrament nor doth necessarily require the same which by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect Diuision 9. HIS next Argument drawen from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments is idle and forcelesse For wee denie not as there he supposeth the Sacramentall Signes containing the bodie of Christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues to wit the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them They signifie likewise Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion And so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem on Palme Sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards as Eusebius Emissenus and other Fathers teach and as an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories c. MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments whose nature is to signifie one thing and to be another The Argument is this No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist They are not therefore essentially either To this idle and forcelesse Argument as he pleaseth to style it he thus answereth 1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion Now 1. what is this to mine Argument was this man thinke we euer a disputant that answereth Arguments on this wise which part of my Syllogisme I pray you is this Answer applied to I had thought that a Syllogisme being propounded the Answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions 2. It is not true that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are signes of these things Some affections of them and Actions vsed about them indeede are The bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment not nutrition The eating and drinking is a signe of it Signes they are of Christs body and blood not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion though their being apart is a signe of it also 3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie But 1. If signum res signata the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues as without all Question they are a Father may as well be a father to himselfe as a signe may be the signe of it selfe Not to adde that the Ancients as hath formerly beene shewen are wont to call the Sacraments pictures and pledges and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture or a pledge of it selfe 2. I might well put this Defendant to prooue that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification or that his entrance into Ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen whatsoeuer his bastardly Eusebius Emissenus say of it whose authoritie is no better then his owne 3. Let him haue what he would that the one was a type of the other Doth it follow Christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification therefore Christ was a type or a signe of himselfe 4. An Emperour and his victorie I suppose are not all
and thighes too And seeing hee had all the members of the body hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members Let vs reason backward as well wee may If Christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes then he hath all those limmes whereof such a body consisteth And then let vs say to these as he then to them You heare of flesh and feet and hands and other limmes And doe you forge vs some Stoicall round bals and aiery dotages As these doe little round wafer-cakes which they beare vs downe to be Christs body He alludeth to the Stoicks who held that the Gods had some shape and that shape was as a body but yet no body and had as it were blood and yet no blood Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them and our Romanists at this day with either imagining our Sauiour saith Tertullian to haue flesh hard without bones solide without muscles bloody without blood clad without coate speaking without tongue eating without teeth c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Desciplâ—s they that imagined such a Christ as this that deceiueth beguileth and deludeth all mens eyes and senses and touchings and taste too hee might haue said we at least may say should not bring him from heauen from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body though the Papists dare not say they haue theirs from thence but fetch him rather out of some iuglers box the Popish pyx or the like not to worke saluation but to make sport with This I haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God and strange fantasticall body that hath all parts of a mans body and yet none at all to be seen felt heard yea or vnderstood with the Hereticks of old time and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did by the ancient Fathers long since answered As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them that we doe now against these which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered § 2. Oh but saith hee it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor to hold that locall extention visiblitie palpability and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it 1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage or in their lying Legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth or goe downe a childs throat or to make a mans body consisting of flesh blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all not other accidents and properties of a naturall body is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be to be a body and no body which implyeth contradiction And those things that imply contradiction they theÌ„selues grant that God cannot doe For it were to make falshood truth which hee that is Truth it selfe can neuer doe 2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians who likewise answered them then as wee doe these now There is nothing saith the Hereticke that God cannot doe Wee say that all things are possible with God And Iob saith that God can doe all things and there is nothing impossible with him There is nothing therefore but he can doe that is able to doe all things Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this God saith hee can do whatsoeuer he will But God neither can doe nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature As for example he cannot sin hee cannot ly nor do any vniust thing being iustice and truth it selfe Many things there are therefore that God that can doe all things yet cannot doe Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them no argument at all of any impotency in him This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries fighting with the same weapons that they then did for points as absurd as euer any of them held Diuision 11. ANother Argument is by my Aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. 12. wherein from Christs locall being still in heaven hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the Sacrament Of which kinde of disputing I may fitly say with Saint Augustine Behold with what manner of Arguments humane infiâ—mity possessed with vanity contradicteth Gods omnipotency As if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of Gods power which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles of which as I haue said no other reason can be giuen but that hee is omnipotent that did them and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them Can wee conceiue for example the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting the resurrection and repaire which God will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed the personall vnion of man with God the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our Saviour in the Sacrament yet vpon the warrant of Scripture and doctrine of Christs Church faithfully by vs beleeued Can this Minister tell me to come more neerely to our purpose how our Sauiour appeared visibly to S. Paul on earth as diuerse plaine texts import particularly by Bellarmine produced and discussed and yet as himselfe will not deny still remaining in heauen Or can he tell me how our Sauiours body went out of his Sepulcher without remoouing that huge stone rolled afterward by the Angell from it Or how hee entred the house the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples as for a great miracle the Euangelist recounted Or how he pierced the solide and huge Orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them Sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one bodie to be in many places And if according to
Bodies without bignesse Parts bigger then the whole The whole lesse then the least part A growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it The same body that is entire in heauen still in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth These are magicall mysteries indeed which it is no maruell if this ignorant Minister cannot conceiue 2 Yea but our Sauiours wordes of a Camell passing through a needles eye sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension that is as much as if hee had said they shew that a bodie may become no bodie and yet be a body still The speech is hyperbolicall and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken as Piscator well obserueth answering Bellarmine from whom he here hath it then of many other things spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde Quantitie saith Bonaventure is of the verity of a body and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it And though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body such as a Camels is and such as hee granteth Christs to be should be without it Yea and therefore also not the veritie onely as this fellow would haue it but the quantity also as Bonauenture auoweth and this fellow denieth that is the exterior bignesse of Christs body must needs bee with it in the Sacrament if it bee at all there 3. To conclude this wilde discourse indeed because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place wee reason no otherwise howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning then wise and learned men yea Angels too haue taught vs to reason For as the Angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe which were no good Argument if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretikes where it stood them vpon to speake warily and not to argue wildly as this giddy braines tearmeth it Christs body saith Theodoret albeit it be now glorified yet is a bodie still and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had Which as the Angels teach shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen But they saw it then circumscribed Yea our Lord himselfe saith You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds But that nature cannot be seene that is not circumscribed He sheweth then that his body is circumscribed It is not therefore changed into another nature but it remaineth still a true body though filled with divine glory So Fulgentius One and the same Christ saith hee is both locall man of man and God infinite of his Father One and the same according to his humane nature absent from heauen when he was here vpon earth and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his divine and infinite nature neither leaving heauen when he came downe from heauen nor forsaking the earth when hee went vp into heauen Which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes who to shew that his humanity was locall said I goe vp to my Father c. Now how went he vp into heauen but because hee was locall and true man Or how is hee yet present with his faithfull ones but that hee is infinite and true God And Uigilius most euidently against Eutyches to passe by all other places which are more then one in him If the Word saith hee and the Flesh were both of one nature how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word For when it to wit Christs flesh or his body his humanity was on earth it was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not on earth for that according to it we expect Christ to come from heauen whom according to the Word that is his Deitie we beleeue to be with vs on earth It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti◠but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity And hee concludeth his discourse thus This is the Catholike Faith and Confession which the Apostles haue deliuered Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe to this day And if this be so then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it is not Diuision 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the Sacrament and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof whereas Caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved how to wit Christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth can be eaten and receiued by vs. Wee confesse it saith Beza to be an incomprehensible mystery wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen and is no where but there should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else This indeed is a mystery and true Iewell of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived as Caluin Beza and other chiefe Calvinists seeme sometime to meane it then to conceiue all those true miracles which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull Sacrament Yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that Christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes as Caluin expressely affirmeth and so by vt eaten that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him If by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate Christ in the Sacrament as this Minister solueth the former riddle no more present therein nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof or then he is present in the water of Baptisme they are his owne comparisons then is their Sacrament a bare signe and figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it For what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another bread for example remembring our Saviours passion And then are Caluin Beza