that God dwelleth in vs Iohn 4.12 and yet we beleeue and confes that he dwelleth not in his saints by his vnion or vniting 1. Corinth 6.19 For our bodies are so the tēples of the holy ghost that yet they make not one subsistēce or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is seuerally by himselfe a certaine thing so likewise the holy ghost to wit god eternall So a wicked spirit and some one possessed with the same wicked spirit are ioined togither yet the vncleane spirite is not in man as the soule is in the bodie For the wicked spirit remaineth by it self a certain thing much like as the ghest is in his inne and againe the possessed with the wicked spirit is so become the inne or lodging place of the wicked spirite that yet the ghest is another from him As for vs we affirme the person of the word or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken vnto him that hee hath vnited himselfe thereto by a personall vnion so I say that the nature taken or assumed being sustained and vpheld in the nature taking or assuming maketh yet notwithstanding but one person which is the eternall worde of God Hereupon it foloweth that there are not two sonnes of God much lesse two Christs one the son of Marie the other the son of God Matth. 1.21.23 but one Immanuel and sauior onelie And this is the very true description of the personall vnion as wil yet much more plainelie appeare if we compare with this truth touching the personal vnion Sundrie sorts of errors the descriptions that are partlie felt from the olde heresies and partlie anew deuised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies First there are some that feare not openly to say that the habitation or dwelling of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered in Christ or that he doth no otherwise dwell in him than in other men yea than in other creatures Iacobus Andreas assertion and the same confuted Iacobus Andreas in those his Thesis or propositions by which he blowed to the field or bade the battel wrote the same euen in so many words as you would saie to wit that the habitation or dwelling of the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creaturs whatsoeuer as in respect of his essentiall habitation or dwelling for God is euerie where If a man demaund what shall be the difference of the personall vnion this shall be their answeare that it consisteth herein that into all other things the godhead hath powred forth some properties or qualities but into Christes humanity or manhoode hee hath powred all properties A wonderfull thing that after that these opinions haue nowe a long while since bin tossed and by the solemne and most iust iudgements of Christes church condemned and confounded by so many darts as haue come from heauen it selfe against the authors and fautors of these vngodlie blasphemies a maruellous thing I say that there should now spring vp some as dare be bolde both by worde and writing to maintaine and defend the same and that with so great reioicing and commendation of most vnskilfull men for who is he vnles hee be altogither blinde that seeth not that if the word be no other wise present in christ thā in many things that is to say beingly presently powerfully as in schools they were woont to say that then Christs person is destroied His heresie is declared before as Nestorius taught And that if wee grant an effusion or powring forth of all the proprieties of the godhead into the flesh assumed or taken that then the other part of the vngodlie assertion of Eutyches Concerning him and his heresie see before shall be erceted and set vp A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such diuers matters to wit the seperating of the naturs on the one side the effusion or powring forth of the properties of the one nature into the other on the other side first in our memory time most impudently fried and most vnskilfully by our vbiquitaries defended But let vs I pray you somwhat more narrowlie looke into the matter that we may see what it meaneth This I say that if the personall vnion be to be defined and determined by the effusion or powring foorth of all properties that then this Hee ouerthroweth the error by absurdities insuming vpon it The first absurditie which of al things is most false vngodly will follow therevpon to wit that God is in some sorte personallie vnited vnto all things created Why so Because the effusiō or powring forth of all some properties alone doo not differ genere as they say that is in the general or cōmon kind but according to more or lesse only wherfore either Christ was not otherwise God than any other thing though perhaps hee were somewhat more perfect than other things or else other things were diuine and god-like but Christs flesh most diuine and god-like The second absurditie Againe if the definition of the personall vnion were true it woulde followe therevpon that the three persons wer vnited to that flesh that was assumed or taken for the essentiall proprietie of the verie godhead it selfe are common to the three persons in one the self-same essence or being therfore to be infinite almighty knowing al things present euery wher c as they themselues now speak be not proprieties either of the father or of the son or of the holy ghost but onely of that alone and altogither singular godhead Wherevpon it foloweth that if we grant that definition of the personall vnion that then the 3 persons of the godhead were incarnat They were so called bicause they affirmed that God the father suffered Isiodor Orig. libr. 8. The third absurditie tooke flesh vpon them and so we shall proceede further than the patropassian heretiks Moreouer by this means the godhead it self shold be spoiled of his most essential proprieties euē this I say which are most proper therto or which do belōg vnto the same after the fourth maner or sort as the logicians speake that is to say doo belong vnto the whole Godhead alone vnto the Godhead and alwaies vnto the same for verilie if they be in deed communicated vnto the nature of man that was assured or taken then I say they doo now cease to be proper to the Godhead vnlesse we minde to make these termes proper common all one But the Lord speaketh otherwise in the prophet saieng I will not giue my glorie vnto another Isaiah 48.11 The fourth absurditie What more Him whome these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion had made of him that was God man togither in one person but one that carried or bare God these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion conceit transforme him I say and his flesh hauing
and â—anhood be the abstracts and God and â—an the concrets And then I say that the thinges attributed to the humanitie nay be attributed to God or spoken of â—im though they cannot be attributed to the Godhead or spoken thereof and on thâ— other side I affirme that such things as be proper to the Godhead may be attributed to man though not to the manhood Wherefore this proposition is true This man is God or this The eternall word of the father is man but these are vngodlie and blasphemous the Godhead is the manhood or the manhood is the Godhead So we must say and beleeue God that is to say the sonne was borne of the virgine suffered dead c. but not the Godhead for he in deed that is God suffered but not his Godhead 1. Pet. 3 18. Therefore when Peter saith that Christ suffered he added in the flesh So Paule Rom. 1. Rom. 1.4 He was mightilie declared to be the son of God according to the spirit The cause of this predication or speech in the abstract is the verie personall vnion it selfe to wit because that that subsistence or being or that person Christ is by the figure Synecdoche That is 〈…〉 put for the whole so denominated of either of his natures Wherfore whether he be called man he is yet notwithstanding vnderstood to be God or whether he be called God he is like wise vnderstood to be man But when wee speake of the natures themselues to wit either the manhood or the Godhead by these abstracted names ther is nothing els signified or meant but the seuerall natures in and by themselues And least these maner of speeches might seeme to anie man darke and strange He preuenteth an obiection as though christian religion were conteined in certeine hiddeÌ„ mysteries and secrets far remooued from common vse vnderstanding whereas rather on the other side the Holie ghost instructing the church touching these most darke hidden matters hath kept a most grosse as you would say and common mamer of teaching Theodoretus Two similitudes to explaine the point by Theodoret doth rightlie and trulie tell vs that euen the common people are hardlie accustomed to speake anie otherwise for if Peter speake who would not rather say that Peter speaketh than say that Peters bodie or toong speaketh and yet notwithstanding neither dooth Peters minde nor his foot nor anie other member speake but his toong or mouth But because these things haue euen personallie growne vp as it were togither and are come into one subsistence or being that is truelie in the concret attributed to and spoken of the whole which if it were vttered of the parts of the whole considered seuerallie and by themselues should be falslie spoken What more By reason of this personall vnion though now it be dissolued through death Peter shal be said to haue died and sat at Rome whose soule yet notwithstanding neither â—s dead neither anie where placed vpon â—he earth So when I say the eternall â—onne of God died I consider and meane him as he is whole Christ although I denominate him after one of his natures to wit his mortall or humane nature So againe I say This man forgiueth sinnes and yet not as he is man of himselfe for it belongeth onelie to God to forgiue sinnes but because he is God and man in one person togither Marke 2.7 And this is the manner of speaking which the ancient diuines haue called the communicating of proprieties Communicating of proprieties and what it is which some do not rightlie distinguish from making common and other some disputing whether it be reall yea or no haue bewraied most grosse ignorance And this may easilie be decided and determined by the vnmoouable foundations abouesaid if we haue not a contentious spirit wherevnto if we should not yeeld doubtlesse the old sophisters and naturall philosophers if they were aliue at this day wold laugh vs to scorne Religion alloweth no falshood Diuinitie christian religion admitteth no false matter or point therefore that trope or maner of spech touching the communicating of the proprieties is altogither true in the concret that is in Christs person being weighed as if some whole thing should be considered iointlie and togither neither was it woont otherwise to be vsed in the church But in the abstract that is in the appellatiue or common name or name whereby either of the natures be called it can neuer be vsed without vngodlinesse much lesse can it be taken for true that the proprieties of the Godhead may be spoken of the manhood or the proprieties of the manhood spoken of the Godhead And these be the points which we being about to speake of the Lords supper haue thought needfull to be propounded and deliuered that therefore remaining behind may be the better vnderstood of which we will by Gods grace speake at large in the next reading or lecture THE SECOND HOMILIE or Sermon made the eight of Aprill 1574. THis is the sum of the thinges that wee spake in the former Sermon to wit The summe of the former Sermon consisting of foure particular points that 1 al the knowledge of our saluation did depend of the knowlege of Christ and that wee 2 had in Christ principally two things to be considered that is to saye such as did concerne the knowledge of his person and such also as did concerne the knowledge of his offices We haue heard 3 that vnder the name or worde of person there was meant Christ himselfe further that that person consisted of two natures that is the godhead the manhoode both of these being so vnited and ioyned together that the very natures themselues their properties also remaining sound and vnconfounded Christ by that meanes is become but one subsistence or being For wee haue alreadie affirmed the godhead so to haue assumed and taken the manhood vnto it that they are not now two persoÌ„s but two natures of which two natures the one that is to say the nature assumed or taken is sustained and vpheld or as I may so say made a persoÌ„ with the nature assuming that is to say the godhead from 4 this wee proceeded to speake of suche things as were attributed to or spoken of either of the natures or the whole person and wee affirmed that they were so to be vsed as that we alwaies preserued the vnion of the person and continuallie auoided the confounding of the natures For seeing these two natures Synodus Chalcedonensis are as the Synode of Chalcedon saieth vndiuidedlie vnseparablie and vnconfoundedlie coupled together in the personall vnion necessarie is it that either of these natures should haue their owne proper thinges attributed vnto them and therfore not communicated vnto others Wherfore some things attributed to the godhead and somthings also attributed vnto the manhood were so proper and peculiar to the Godhead and the manhoode that those that were attributed to the one
11.26 vntill his comming againe but for our instruction also this being plaine to vs in that circuÌ„stance of tyme that forasmuch as the bread was broken in the supper before his bodie was crucified on the crosse that bread could not be that same naturall body that was crucified on the crosse c as Papistes grossely imagine and maintaine the reason is because these things that differ in time can not bee saide in all respectes yea hardlye in anye respecte to bee the same 3 Thirdly wherfore it was ordained to wit to strengthen our faith in the truth of Gods promises by which wee may see that wee are dull and â—owe of hearte to beleeue whatsoeuer the Pelagians the pride of our owne minds would perswade vs to the contrarie GOD prouiding for the curing of this disease in vs Luke 24 25. not onely his word preached but visible signes and seales also by which though the outward sences may be satisfied the Lord yet notwithstanding speaketh to our soules and consciences the Lorde likewise instituting the same as effectuall meanes to putte vs in remembraunce by reason of our forgetfulnesse of Iesus Christ being absent as also of his death and passion and of the fruites and profites wee reape thereby Nowe a remembraunce of a thing it coulde not bee if the thing it selfe were present And all these three points are prooued out of 1. Corinth 11.23.24 In the second place the deepe and due consideration of these three circumstances folowing will serue much for the cleering of this question also touching the Lords supper 1 First which be the signes in the sacrament to wit the visible elements of bread and wine which haue that strength and force in them not of themselues in their owne nature for then all bread and wine should haue the like neither yet because they be vsed by men in the administration and participation of the supper for if that were true manie things then should haue the like power and effect but in respect of the Lords institution who in deed hath dedicated and appointed them to those holie vses and who alone hath power to ordeine holie signes or sacraments and to giue them that effect propertie as hath beene plainelie declared before 2 Secondlie what be the things signified thereby to wit the blessed bodie of Christ crucified and his pretious bloud shed for the benefit and good of all those that by a liuelie and stedfast faith doo apprehend and take hold of him and all his merits for no doubt but it was the Lords purpose both in the elements and the vse of the same to direct our faith to these thinges in him which in trueth were in him and which such was his good pleasure towardes vs miserable wretches should be set out vnto vs in the sacrament otherwise the Lord Iesus should haue dallied with vs and that in matters of no small importance from the which as we stedfastly beleeue he was vtterly free so the least thought of such a conceit and dotage should not so much as once enter into vs. 3 Thirdlie the analogie proportion and agreement which is betweene the signes and the things signified the Lord no doubt choosing such elementes as might most aptlie and fitlie expresse the things signified and sealed by the same for otherwise if we had had bare signes alone without holie things signified in and by the same as our faith had no whit at all beene prouided for because it being spirituall and inward is not nor cannot be nourished with outward and corporall thinges so wee might easilie haue beene carried away into idolatrie or superstition at the least whilest we directed our imagination for I dare not call it faith to visible and externall elements or doted in our fantasie and vnderstanding vppon creatures which what hurt it might haue doone though wee feele not by our owne experience God be thanked therefore yet wee may behold and see the same in the lamentable and pitifull spectacle of manie blind and superstitious ones in the world Now the analogie and proportion betweene the signes and the things signified in the Lords supper may easilie be reduced and brought into three especiall heads or points 1 First that as verilie as that bread is broken before our bodily eies in the administration of the Lords supper and the wine powred out and diffused or spred abrode in the sight of vs all speciallie whilest that manie are made partakers of the same so verile doo we or ought we by the eie of faith to behold Christ wounded for our transgressions Isaiah 53.5 broken for our iniquities as Isaiah saith and his blessed body crucified and his bloud shed vpon the crosse for manie Matth. 26.26 27.28 1. Cor. 11.24.25.26 for the remission of sinnes the one being no more certeinelie performed in bodilie action and presence of the people than the other is trulie and faithfullie accomplished in spirit truth 2 Secondlie that as bread hath this property through Gods blessing giuen it to feed and strengthen our naturall bodies in this life Psal 104.15 so his bodie being represented effectuallie vnto vs by that bread and apprehended applied vnto our selues by faith hath the selfe same propertie touching our soules to strengthen and to nourish them spirituallie Psal 104.15 Iudg. 9.13 euen to eternall life And euen as the wine dooth comfort make mans heart glad as appeareth by sundrie scriptures so our full ioy and spirituall comfort is to be found in none other but in him alone And to ioine these two togither of which we haue spoken seuerallie this we must know and beleeue further that as our bodily diet is then ful whole and perfect as it were when it consisteth of these two things to wit bread and wine or drinke so we are to know and beleeue that the fulnesse and perfection of all spirituall nourishment is to be found in Christ alone and no where else whilest that he is become as well the drinke as the meat of our soule not onelie in this double signe helping our infirmity but also teaching vs to seeke the heauenly refection and nourishment of our soules fullie and wholy in him and no where els whervnto also he himselfe in some sort alludeth Matth. 11.28 Iohn 6 35. Iohn 7.37.38 and in other places of scripture 3 Thirdlie that euen as in our knowledge the bread appointed for the Lords supper is made of manie graines of corne and the wine likewise it selfe of sundrie and seuerall grapes and yet all maketh but one bread one wine so all the faithfull should be instructed thereby that how soeuer they be seuerall distinct persons one of them from another euen as the seuerall members in mans bodie are that yet they all compacted togither make but one bodie in Christ the onelie head thereof Rom. 12.4.5 1. Cor. 10.16.17 as the apostle plainlie prooueth in sundrie places of his epistles by which also they are
the spirituall graces not onelie offered but giuen also vnto vs therin and this likewise to be wrought in vs though our sauiour be in heauen in respect of his bodie Acts. 3.21 Psalm 39.12 we heere as pilgrims strangers on the earth by the wonderfull vnsearchable working of his holie spirit in vs and by the meanes of a liuelie assured faith both which being knit togither doo easilie ioine togither thinges that be as farre asunder in respect of distance of place as one end of the earth is from the other and as farre asunder as heauen and earth themselues are or else how could we either beleeue the holie catholike church and feele the communion of saints seeing it commonlie falleth out that the members of that holie fellowshippe are sundered one of them from another in respect of great distance of place or be assured that Christes righteousnesse is become ours seeing he is in the heauen and wee on the earth if by faith we did not take holde of the same and applie it vnto our selues Besides if men should imbrace this sacramentarie opinion what were it but to euert as the trueth of Christes promises so the certeinetie and assurednesse of his word who in plaine termes calleth this holie sacrament his bodie Wherfore be it far from vs to approoue of anie such dotage as defaceth the trueth of the word derogateth from Christe and vtterlie destroieth our owne faith than which what can be more horrible to heare or fearefull to thinke 2 The second extremitie is that of consubstantiation some affirming that there is deliuered to the people they receiue togither with the substance of bread the verie substance of Christes verie naturall bodie so that there is as it were an intermingling or mixture of both the substances in the action of the supper But this opinion is iustlie to be disliked and reprooued not onelie because of the absurdities which it hath common with the heresie of transubstantiation whereof we will speake in the next place but also because it is quite and cleane contrarie to common sence reason confounding and iumbling togither two seuerall distinct substances and making the lesse to wit the substance of the bread to comprehend the greater that is Christes humane bodie yea euen his verie Godhead heauen and earth is not able to conteine Besides it dooth vtterlie take away an essentiall propertie of Christes bodie Isaiah 66.1 Acts. 7.49.17.21 for if Christ in respect of his humanitie be like vnto vs in all things sinne onelie excepted Hebr. 4.15 and we know by the light of reason vnderstanding that God hath bestowed vpon vs yea by verie experience that our bodies are circumscriptible and tied to a place it must needs follow that Christ in respect of his manhood or Christ as he is man is and must be tied to a place and not be in euery place as he must needs be if these mens assertions be true which is nothing els in deed but vtterlie to destroy Christs body which also I prooue against them thus Whosoeuer taketh away the essentiall propertie of anie thing taketh away also the verie thing it selfe This proposition is prooued by this marime in logike If the definition of a thing which cheeflie consisteth of the essentiall propertie of the thing be taken away then the thing it selfe also defined falleth away as for example If reasonable liuing creature which is the definition of a man be taken away what shall become of man or where shall he appeare which is the thing defined whereof also there is good reason because the essentiall propertie is it that constituteth or maketh the thing Hitherto the maior proposition as we say in schooles with the proofs thereof Now foloweth the minor or second proposition But these men take away the essentiall propertie of a thing to wit of a bodie which is to be circumscriptible or tied to a place which is in deed an essentiall propertie of the bodie of man and therefore of Christes bodie as hee is man whilest they will haue him as he is man in sundrie places at one time If anie man will denie this it may easilie be prooued both by their owne writinges in sundrie places and also by the definition of a bodie which is a quantitie that may be diuided according to the threefold measuring receiued amongest men that is length breadth and thickenesse and likewise by the description of a place which is defined to be a nighnesse or touching of the thing conteining and the thing conteined The conclusion therfore is that in taking away place from the bodie of Christ which they doo whilest they place it in euerie place whereas in the nature thereof it can be but in one place at one time they doo vtterlie destroie the bodie or humanitie of Christ or at the least confound it so with the Godhead as Eutyches did that they make a confusion whereas in all trueth and vprightnesse there shoulde remaine a distinction of the proprieties of either nature in his blessed person But of this inough in this place because it is somewhat philosophicall and because also in the next section we shall haue occasion to deale with the like 3 The third extremitie is that of transubstantiation mainteined altogither by the Romish catholiks as they will be called who hold that the bread and wine the substance thereof vanishing away and nothing being left but the accidents or qualities thereof as in the bread roundnesse whitenesse c and in the wine rednesse moisture c are changed and that by the power of certeine words spoken by the preest as they name him ouer the elements they are turned into the verie naturall bodie and bloud of our sauior Concerning this point and the branches therof I minde to speake both more particularlie and more fullie because it is one of the popish opinions that greatlie at this present troubleth the christian world and namelie our flourishing isle of England and also because in the daies of persecution heeretofore both within this land and elswhere it hath beene the common knife that the wicked haue vsed to cut the throtes of the godlie withall as it were the hatchet to chop off their heads It may be that in this my poore trauel some may be conuerted from falshood to truth and so be saued in the day of Christ or if that gratious effect followe not in the aduersaries yet I hope the friendes and louers of truth shall by this meanes be somwhat staied that they be not caried away with certaine inticing and inchaunting wordes in the mouths of some seducing spirites whom Antichrist Satans eldest sonne hath thrust into the worlde to peruert men from the truth and obedience of God 1 First for the name of Transubstantiation I feare not to affirme that it is verye newe and neuer heard of before the days of pope Innocent the third who was about the yeare of our Lorde 1205