both a nature a person but the manhood is not of it selfe anie other thing than a nature which as they speake in the scholes is become a person There is but one sonne of God as there is but one Christ and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe so that now there are not two sonnes to wit one eternall and naturall or of the substance and being of the father and another created and adopted but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to himself so that also there are not two Christs but one onelie God and man together from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke Now we learne what we may call the person of Christ What the person of Christ is to wit the son of God manifested in the flesh Let vs come nowe to the word vnion for vniting is that whereby these two natures to wit the godhead or the person of the word and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What vnion or vniting is that is the coupling or ioyning together of two thinges or more in such sort that of those many things commyng together some one certaine thing is compounded or made There are diuers sorts of vniting And there are diuers kinds of vnitings for sometimes nature is vnited with the forme or shape sometime an accident with the subiect sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts to establish or make a whole matter Vniting and vnion or vnitie differ much Wherefore vniting is one thing and vnitie or onenesse as a man might saye is an other thing For one or onenesse is not a number neither dooth it necessarily presuppose a number◠except in things compounded but is the beginning of a number Therefore we hold that there is in christ a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person and an vniting of the natures These words are diligently to be marked so much the more bicause the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions troubles in these disputations matters Certainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vniting and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vnitie or onenesse are altogither diuers matters For in the mysterie of the Trinitie there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence and a Trinitie in the persons Againe on the other side there is in Christ an vniting of the natures and an vnitie or onenesse of the person Wherefore the Fathers saide well that in the diuinitie there is not an other thing and an other thing that is to say In the godhead there is but one simple being two thinges for in the diuinitie there is but one onely and most simple essence or being but an other and an other meaning persons For the Father is one an other is the Son and the Holie-ghost is an other The reason is because when we say another we mean the person when wee saye an other thing wee meane the nature Wherefore there is not an other thing in the diuinity for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods In Christ on the other side there is an other thing In Christ there is two natures but not two persons and an other thing because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood and not an other and an other bicause Christ is but one subsistence or being consisting not of two persons but of mans nature being taken which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion or vniting This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting Errors cannot be wel confūted til the personall vnion bee well knowne is called personall vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors wherewith too manie at this present are sicke and infected as we shall wel perceiue when we shall come to the matter it selfe wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God Isaiah 7.14 Matth. 1.23 First Isaiah saieth that this our sauiour is Immanuell that is God with vs. Iohn 1.14 Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie saith that the word became or was made flesh Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 2 1◠when hee saith that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham Therefore the word taking openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn And the word was made flesh and both these laid togither doo also declare how Christ is God with vs and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall vnion is They which haue not interpreted that place of Iohn Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues haue fallen into diuerse errors for some haue expounded it thus the word was made flesh because the word was in sted of the soule vnto the bodie taken that is to say that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie that by that meanes he might become Christ So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule in the sted thereof did substitute the Godhead Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man and not a reasonable soule Tripartit hist lib. 5. cap. 44. lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil epist 74. August lib. Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted this also necessarilie foloweth that except the word had taken the soule vnto it likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person neither could Christ properlie haue suffered that I may let slippe many other most absurd points seeing that the soule properlie is troubled and afflicted Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh a ghost or fantasie and to that purpose haue wrested and writhen the worde similitude or likenes Roman 8.3 in these wordes of Paule God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh c whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had a double name Docitae or Docetae and sprung indeede as some suppose from Simon Magus who helde that Christ came not in the flesh but that hee was Christ They held as the Marcionites did that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost See homil 2. following If these mens opiniōs were true christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus or a Sauiour as indeed one that had not bin born or had suffered for vs. There are othersome who forsaking these errors do notwithstāding fall into others no lesse
absurde and detestable bicause as the Poet saieth while fooles auoid some vices or faults they ru◠into others Nestorius whose heresie what it was is opened before For Nestorius interpreted these wordes the word became flesh after this manner that is to saie the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie and fullie powre foorth the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke The absurditie of the former interpretation Which interpretation if it be true Christ is not God but diuine or as you woulde say god-like or heauenlie and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones yet hee is not to be worshipped neither to be accounted as a Sauiour Whereas notwithstanding Paule attributeth vnto Christ Coloss 2. ◠not the fulnesse of the diuinitie but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead and to be both GOD and man which is a proper title to our sauiour Christ is far different from this to be one that beareth or carrieth God So that Nestorius maketh Christ God not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or person of the word but accounts him as most diuine onely by the presence comming force or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts and beside that loosing or destroying Christs person he maketh him a mere or only man he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood whereas on the other side the fleshe taken is sustained and vpholden in and by the godhead taking it Eutyches heresie confuted Eutyches falling into the contrarie error thought that by these words Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie the word was made or became flesh this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh and for the vniting of the natures he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead that is to say darknesse for light in which matter he was most foulie deceiued for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable it would follow if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth that the word ceased to be God so soone as it was made or became flesh because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod Exod. 4.2 and began to be a serpent Aristotle euen as Aristotle teacheth that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme another is brought in But if the abolishing or taking away be denied that a mingling a mixture may be established whether it be of the natures themselues it is of the Godhead and the manhood or of the properties of either nature then will insue that which is more absurd than the former to wit that Christ is neither God nor man but a certeine third thing compacted of both as the drinke called Mulsum made of wine and honie sodden together is neither wine nor honie alone but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundrie errours But all these errours are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted if the worde of assuming or taking bee rightlie expounded that is by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture Wherefore declare at the length will some saie The personall vnion what it is what is the hypostaticall or personall vnion in Christ It is the taking of mans nature which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature that is to say such a taking or vniting that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting but one subsistence or being onelie in which subsistence that diuine nature that is to saie the person of the worde beareth swaie or ruleth I repeate this againe The hypostaticall or personall vnion is that from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the soule Athanasius Athanasius who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth being chiefly the author thereof A similitude Wherefore as a certaine soule beeing ioyned to a certain bodie maketh one certaine person as Peter Paule Iohn So that eternall worde of the Father tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine that is to saye made the same so proper vnto it selfe that from hence commeth and proceedeth that person whiche is called Christ It appeareth plainelie vnto vs out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn Iohn 10.18 that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort Christ there saith I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake either secretlie in respect of his bodie The place of Iohn 10. expounded which cannot be vnderstood either of the or in respect of his soule or else in respect of his bodie and soule together or else distinctly and plainely in respect of his godhead Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrumēt that which is rather subiect to the soule or Soule alon◠But is it in respect of the soule it self considered by it selfe No indeede for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule and to take vp againe my selfe a soule Verily in the resurrection the soule is not taken vp againe but the bodie therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ either in respect of his bodie onelie or in respect of his soule onely or of them both togither What then is it in respect of them both together No rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing which may be saide to laie downe and to take vp his soule Wherefore Christ so spake according to his deitie and when hee saieth but of the godhead that he hath power to laie downe his life and to take it againe he dooth againe open that mysterie or secret which wee handle For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together are in suche sorte sette out that not two things but one alone is established and that without confusion yet so that the one nature beareth rule And it is meete to be marked that Christ saieth I haue power to laie downe not euery soule but mine owne Wherefore this cannot so be taken nor referred to this end that God should be the lord of all being things but he sheweth that that soule of his which he would lay down take again was otherwise his soule than other mens soules are theirs How then is it Christes soule will some men say Verily by personall vnion The scripture saith
in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powred into the same into the Godhead it selfe But now if there nothing happen to God or there be no accident in him as indeed there is not for whatsoeuer is in him is substance and not accidents as they speake in schooles How were the properties by which he is distinguished from things created indeed powred foorth into the flesh assumed and taken but that also mans nature should be changed into a certeine Godhead that is made or created He procureth an obiection But if these men will denie as sometimes I see them by the power of trueth it selfe constreined to denie that the monstrous presence euerie where for whose cause onelie whatsoeuer they faine they propound vnto vs that monster of vbiquitie to be esteemed and reuerenced dooth not cleaue vnto Christes flesh as to his proper subiect or that it is not accidents but onlie as accidents then I say who seeth not what monstrous things these are to ascribe vnto the flesh a reall presence euerie where in it selfe though not of it selfe the subiect whereof should yet notwithstanding not be the flesh it selfe but the Godhead which Godhead for all that should no otherwise be present to the flesh than to all other things whatsoeuer And whereof will these men be ashamed who are so farre off from being ashamed of these matters that yet they dare obiect this against vs that we exact points of diuinitie and religion to be handled according to the rules of philosophie The fift absurditie Certeinelie if so be it that the personall vnion must be defined and determined not by the vnion of the verie person of the word with flesh assumed or taken into one and the selfe same subsistence or being yet without anie reall vnion either of the natures themselues or of the essentiall properties wherwith they are indued but by the vniuersall effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces from the nature assuming or taking into the nature assumed or taken which monstrous opinion fet from the filthie stincking puddles both of Nestorius Eutyches also and twise sod Brentius Suindelinus Illyrichus and these other goodlie fellowes doo propound and deliuer vnto the churches of Christ I say that whether they will yea or no this must needs follow vpon it that Christ is neither God nor man much lesse GOD and man togither Chimaera is a monster hauing three heads one like a lion another like a gote the third like a dragon but a certeine Chimaera or monster made of most grosse confusion and discord Yea and what meaneth this that they themselues are of necessitie constreined to except some things after that they haue affirmed that all things are powred foorth The sixt absurditie For these things verilie to be without beginning to be of himselfe c. Cannot be attributed to a creature but they may be personallie vnited and are in deed personallie vnited because that must be true which Christ himselfe saith Iohn 8.58 Before Abraham was I am And this is true because that he that after so manie ages passed from the beginning of the world was made or became the sonne of Mary Iohn 1.1 euen he I say is that word which was in the beginning not so much for his full effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces as for the bodilie vnion or vniting of the Godhead it himselfe in the person of the word wherefore if we will beleeue these men this sonne of the virgine Marie shall not be eternall because there was not powred into the flesh assumed or taken that same being without beginning whereof he cannot be partaker euen as they themselues confesse who are otherwise large sheders abrode or rather euerters and ouerthrowers of all properties They being thus driuen from hense euen as it were out of some hold or fortresse of their owne at the last they retire hither or haue this starting hole Another obiection answered or rather error confuted to say forsooth that the personall vnion consisteth heerin that the word dooth nothing but with the manhoood and by the manhood as the soule dooth nothing but with the bodie or by the bodie Peripatelians were subtle philosophers of Aristotles sect opinion who had their names of disputing walking I will leaue this to the Peripatelians to be reasons of whether it be true that the soule ioined to the bodie doth nothing of it selfe for there are not diuers wanting that doo stiflie and stoutlie denie the same But I affirme that that definition of the personall vnion cannot stand I grant therefore that from the time the eternall word tooke flesh vnto him that it did not at anie time doo anie thing without the flesh the reason is because this vnion is perpetuall and yet for al that it dooth not heerevpon follow that whatsoeuer the worde did he did it by the flesh Though it be granted I say that the word did nothing being separated from the flesh because that that flesh which it once tooke it neuer laid downe yet it followeth not that whatsoeuer the word did it did it by the fleshe which thing may bee shewed by most assured and manifest examples The first example Christ raised vppe himselfe by his owne diuine power who also had said of himselfe Iohn 10.18 I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe Did therefore the Godhead through the flesh accomplish and performe that worke I suppose no man will say so The second example Iohn 1.48 Matth. 9.4 When Christ beheld Nathaniell absent did he see him with his bodilie eies And when without the disclosing of anie other man he saw the thoughts of his aduersaries did he this by anie sharpnesse of mans minde or vnderstanding No verilie Wherefore he saw all these things as he was God and not with minde or bodie and yet he saw them not without man because he being God is man also The third example Matth. 8.13 Iohn 9.6.7 c. When he healed the Centurians seruant being absent did he that as when he healed that blind man being present putting his hand to him and making the claie No in deed For he wrought this latter by his hands mooued through the flesh that is to say vsing the instrument of flesh assumed or taken whereas he healed the other by the onelie power of his Godhead And yet he was not free from flesh I confesse it He healed him therefore with the flesh but not through flesh Wherefore in this fellow-working togither of the Godhead the nature assumed or taken the personall vnion is not deposed or ouerthrowne but established rather Beside though I should grant the antecedent or first proposition He granteth the aduersaries that which they speake and yet they gaine nothing by it to witte that the worde dooth nothing but with and by the manhood yet that would not follow therevpon that they imagine
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
howe much he did the more debase himselfe Nowe then if the reall taking of all infirmities vppon himselfe sinne onelie excepted hath taken nothing at al from his glorie Hebr 4.15 or impaired and lessened the same how much lesse hath this doone it that he hath for euer taken together with verie flesh the verie proprieties of flesh and that vnchangeably and without confounding But they obiect further Another obiection The answeare thereto that they meane not to abolish those proprieties Thē they must needes attribute contrarie thinges to one and the self-same subiect that altogether in one and the self-same respect to wit to be circumscribed and tied to a place which is the naturall propertie of an instrumentall body The aduersaries absurditie aswel against reason as religion and yet notwithstanding at one and the self-same time to be both in heuen and in innumerable places or else euerye where if you will in earth and so one and the selfe-same flesh shall haue a quantity sette it and also bee without quantitie that is to say shal be both a bodie and not a bodie And what is this else I pray you but to make euery thing of anie thing as wee commonlie say but let vs heare what they do yet further obiect The third obiection They will haue that time that went before the glorofieng of our sauior Christs flesh to be distinguished from that time in which that his fleshe was receiued vp into glorie We grant it An answeare thereto taken from a double absurditie but withall we say that if this reall coniunction of the flesh with the bread doo depend of the glorification of Christes fleshe it can haue no place in that first institution of the supper because this fleshe was not as then glorified but rather most nie to debasing humbling Besides this flesh is offred vnto vs at this present to be partaken by vs not as glorious or glorified The transfiguration of Christ mentioned Math. 17.2.3 c feareth not the aduersaries but that I may so speake euen as it were hanging vppon the crosse Against this exception they oppose and set the miracle of Christes transfiguration But what agreement is there betwixt these two things For of a truth nothing vnnaturall or against nature fel out in the transfiguration neither was there any thing there done that did destroy or ouerthrowe the essential proprieties of christs flesh euen as righteous men shal not therfore or then cease to be very men when they shall shine as the sun Daniel 12.3 or brightnes of the firmament or stars But to be euery where or in many places at one time is a property so cōtrary to al things created as which are indeed finite that it belongeth onely vnto the godhead alone because that alone is infinite To conclude we do in one worde as it were Glorification and wherein it standeth answeare thus Glorification tooke not from Christs body a corporal or bodilie nature that is to say quantity or circumscriptiblenes but it abolished the infirmitie weaknes therof which weaknes he for a time tooke vppon him Nowe by the worde infirmity or weaknesse wee meane not any essential proprietie in christes flesh but that onely which sin brought into mans nature yet altogether without the spot or taint of sin as it was in christ This is that I meane where Christs flesh is saide to bee infirme and weake before the glorification of it that is not spoken in respect of the Godhead to the which hee alwayes hath bin is and shall be inferior but in consideration of that great glory into which afterwards that his flesh was exalted yet so that there must alwayes remaine safe and sound as I haue said heretofore those proprieties of which the very truth of the body it selfe consisteth amongest which quantity and therfore circumscriptiblenes obtaineth so excellent notable a place Cyrillus that Cyrill feareth not to affirme that God hymself could not possibly bee euery where if hee were partaker of quantity They affirme Christes bodie to be euery where He calleth them so because they set themselues against nature and reason Iohn 20.27 Therfore these mē I mean both Vbiquitaries and Antiphisitae hauing opēly denied the quantity of Christs flesh must either gette them to Eutyches his tents and take part with hym or if out of the words of Christ who after hys resurrection willeth some to beholde feele him they wil prooue that he hath not put off the quantity of hys fleshe then they must shewe vs that Christes fleshe accordyng to the quantity thereof can be at one tyme euerye where or in manye places whych euen the godhead it selfe if it haue quantitie can not perfourme as Cyrill openly and truly writeth whose authoritie otherwise these men doo most especiallie abuse for this reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar yea they must prooue that the Angelles lied when they saide Matth. 28.6 Hee is risen hee is not heere For whatsoeuer distinction they may vse if wee can shewe a place where Christes flesh is not then wee are sure it can not be euery where and if it can not bee euerye where then neither can the whole flesh it selfe be at one time and together in manie places Hence also it may appeare Brentius and his followers howe absurde and vnreasonable Brentius his opinion is and those that followe him Philip. 2.6 7. who attribute these wordes of the Apostle The forme of God and the forme of a seruant to the onely humanitie or manhood of Christ in it selfe For they vnderstand by the forme of God that their owne forgerie and deuise of all maiestie and all presence as they call it with which as they saye the flesh of Christ was verily in it selfe indued from the very first moment of the personall vnion which it pleased him for a time not to make manifest and this is it they meane by the worde humbling and abasing And the forme of a seruant they call that state and condition He confuteth Brentius and such as maintaine him as vsurpe the place of the Philippians or rather falsely interpreting it in which it pleased him to remain so often as he wold not vse the forme of God Very well saide surelie if a man wil attribute to one subiect or matter two essentiall forms what shall he els doe but confound one and two together and make them both one And what is that else but to bee mad outright Then it remaineth that by this worde or terme forme these men vnderstand neyther the godhead it selfe nor the manhood but a diuers conditiō and state of this his manhood as which inwardly in it selfe was beautified and adorned with all the powerfull graces effects of the godhead powred into the same and yet that he did not alwaies manifest and disclose them But if this be true Two absurdities or errours we must learn
Two very lerned Sermons of M. Beza togither with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lordes Supper Wherevnto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper wherin is breflie and soundlie discussed the pâ—incipall points in controuersie concerning that question By T. W. 2. CORINTH 13.5 Prooue your selues vvhether ye are in the faith Examine your selues Knovv ye not your ovvne selues hovv that Iesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobats AT LONDON Printed by Robert Walde-graue for T. Man and T. Gubbins Anno. 1588. TO THE RIGHT honorable and verie vertuous ladie Brigit countesse of Bedford and to the right worshipfull and his verie good freends sir CHARLES MORISINES knight and the ladie DOROTHIE MORISINES his wife T. W. vvisheth togither vvith all outvvard abuâ—dance of vvorldlie blessings the continuall comfort of a good conscience heere and the eternall saluation of their soules at the last through Christ THe consideration of the christian fauors which you right honorable right worshipfull my verie deere freends haue carried towards me and the memorie of some benefits that I haue receiued from you hath sundrie times so affected my heart that I could not but in the good remembrance therof in some measure of vnfeinednesse as in respect of God praise his holie name for those his mercies and as in regard of you with earnestnesse pray vnto him for your prosperous estates and that in the best things especiallie and as in consideration of my selfe thinke vpon some good meane wherby I might at the least shew my selfe in some sort mindfull of and thankefull for the same Whatsoeuer I write in this behalfe I vtter it I humblie thanke God for it not vaine gloriouslie to boast before God or men in anie thing I haue done for I know feele in my selfe that ouer and besides my grosse greeuous iniquities euen in the best seruices that euer I performed in pietie towards God or in charitie towards his people there was by reason of mine owne corruption and the imperfections that through the same did cleue thervnto matter sufficient inough in truth to abase and to humble me indeed neither yet as cunninglie to craue dailie and new kindnesses a vice too common in this corrupt age the Lord hauing bin pleased in that behalfe to bestow vpon me more simplicitie than by fawning flatterie to fetch from my freends anie thing that might satisfie large affections or releeue present want But to these ends I protest and that in singlenesse of heart haue I declared the same namelie that all my christian acquaintance and amongst others your honour and worships especiallie might be assured that the good you haue doone me though at the first it might seeme to be cast away in as much as present testification of my gratefull minde were not then prest and readie hath not yet vtterlie beene lost because now at the length God hath inabled me by some small meanes to declare the contrarie and againe that I my selfe feeling my selfe now and then by Gods grace I doubt not for as I know so I freelie confesse that in my flesh that is to say in my selfe dwelleth nothing that is good stirred vp to such holie duties might receiue not in the things as performed by my selfe but as they are graces of God flowing from his goodnesse and wrought by his word and spirit both some comfort in the daies of my great greefe and heuinesse of heart and some incouragement to goodnesse also when mine owne dulnesse and backwardnesse to the same not onelie ariseth vp in me but standeth against it as with force and might to stop and hinder me therein In regard whereof also I doo at this time humblie offer and present vnto you right honorable right worshipfull togither first a sound discourse or two which that learned man M. Beza wrote and I long ago translated and withall a short summe that I my selfe penned heeretofore and haue inlarged againe all of them touching that great question of the Lords supper For that woorthie mans woorthie works I dare protest and auer that if the excellencie either of the man or matter or maner may purchase a frutefull commendation and procure fauorable acceptation with them that feare God I meane loue his truth sincerelie it shall not want either the one or the other For as concerning the writer himselfe he is one of the woonders woorthies of the world at this day a man of rare parts euerie maner of way whatsoeuer some either of ignorance in themselues or pride of themselues barke out against him to the contrarie whether we respect sound knowledge and iudgement in the toongs and trueth of God or faithfull paines and frutefull trauels in his ministerie and place And as for the worke it concerneth a great ground of our christian faith and the same controuerted not onlie betweene the superstitious papists and vs in the question of transubstantiation but with such also as in the common profession of Gods holie word and religion we charitably take for our brethren thogh otherwise in this point ouershot as we say ouerseene also The maner of handling is deepe profound and not shallow or meane after the maner and dealing of other men there being for the more full explication of the question deducted and laid out sundrie of the fundamentall points and principles of our christian faith and namelie touching the seuerall and distinct natures of God and man and the personall vnion of them in our sauiour Christ But for mine owne I mind not to say much speciallie as in commendation therof That which I thinke I will plainelie expresse and protest also namelie that as nothing of mine is in anie respect meet to behold the light of this learned age both by reason of mine owne wants insufficiencie and also by means of the great ripenesse of knowledge and iudgement that God hath shed abrode into the hearts of manie men so I confesse my selfe my writings much more vnwoorthie either the same day to be named with that woorthie man of the world or anie maner of way to be ioined with his And yet if the church approoue that which I doo and the godlie receiue some profit by it to spirituall edification I shall much reioice therin not as in respect of that I haue doone for I acknowledge my selfe to haue nothing saue that which I haue receiued but as in regard of the good effects that it hath through Gods almightie and secret blessing brought foorth in the hearts of them that haue bin or shal be acquainted therewith in which treatise I haue speciallie laboured two things First in the daies of so great blindnesse and ignorance amongst the multitude and common sort of people as now preuaileth to instruct the simple as much as I could in the sound knowledge of these most holie mysteries that so neither with the idle and vnskilfull conceits of their owne heads nor with the superstitious and erronious
coulde not be spoken of the other without great impietie and vngodlinesse Notwithstanding by reason of the personal vnion excepting alwaies that which is attributed to the whole person and belongeth to both natures as when Christ is called the mediator and such like such things as are proper to the godhead and therefore as wee haue said can neuer be spoken of the manhoode are yet notwithstanding attributed to Christ as man and againe suche things as are proper to man are spoken and that rightlie of God but neuer or at no hand of the godhead The reason is because that the subsistence or being is denominated euen in the concret of one of the natures onelie So by the Sonne of GOD wee doo many times vnderstand 1. Timoth. 3.16 not onely the godhead of the sonne by it selfe but Christ manifested in the fleshe And by the GOD of glorie wee meane GOD become or made man and like wise by sonne of man we meane man assumed or taken of the eternall son of God Whereby it commeth to passe that by reason of that personall vnion some thinges in the concret may bee saide of the whole person which yet notwithstanding in the abstracte 1. Corinth 2.8 doo agree to one of the natures onelie So Saint Paule affyrmeth that the GOD of glorie was crucified which proposition is not true touching whole Christ One and the selfe-same proposition true and vntrue in seuerall senses that is to say if wee regarde or consider Christ as some whole matter consisting of some particulars but not true if wee vnderstand it of all or euery thing belonging to Christ that is to saye if wee seuerally and distinctlye consider his seuerall natures because the name of the GOD of glorie dooth in the abstract agree or belong to the onelie godhead Wherefore this proposition is true in the sense as before whereas otherwise it is a wicked and an vngodlie thing to say that the godhead was crucified Likewise in the creede of the Apostles Symbol Apost we say that wee beleeue in Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God conceiued borne suffered c all which are truely and christianly spoken And why so Because that by the name of the Sonne of God in the councell we meane not God the word by himselfe alone but GOD manifested in the flesh So the Sonne of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heauen Iohn 3.13 the reason is because he that is man is God also and yet the manhoode of christ was at that time no where else Actes 1.11 but on earth euen as nowe also christs flesh being taken vp into Matth. 28.20 heauen and therefore absent from vs that Sonne of man is yet notwithstanding present with vs because the same christ is that true GOD Isaiah 66.1 Actes 7.48 whome neither heauen nor earth can containe Wherefore as these propositions are false the Godhead is the manhoode or the manhoode is the godhead so these are true This man is God and GOD the worde is man Nowe then if man be truely saide to be God by reason of the personall vnion it followeth therevppon that thinges attributed to the manhoode may rightlie be attributed to GOD and on the other side that things attributed to the Godhead may rightly be attributed to or spoken of christ man But let vs now come to the other part of the knowledge that concerneth our saluation that is to christes office This office is declared in his name Matth. 1.21 for he is Iesus that is to say a Sauiour because God the father hath therefore giuen him vnto vs that hee might saue vs to wit from our sinnes Now hee saueth vs by iustifieng vs because eternall life doth of necessitie agree with iustice or righteousnes Wherefore hee giueth vs life in giuing vs righteousnesse and that of his meere and onely grace through the power and effectuall working of his holie spirit One and the selfe-same power of God appeareth in mans creation and mans restitution sauing that this latter in my iudgement and before men though not before God seeme to be the more excellent and hard worke for euen that very selfe-same power of God which laide it selfe open in the creation of man must of necessity manifest it selfe also in restoring of man This is it that I meane as God the father did freelie through his sonne togither with his almightie power which is the holie-ghost create man so the selfe-same god dooth by sauing iustifie and by iustifieng saue man through his owne sin fallen from grace and yet made againe or anewe as it were through his sonne in the powerfull working of the holie spirit For the holy-ghost worketh in vs that instrument which we cal faith by which only we lay hold of christ after that we know him Neither is this faith some simple or bare accident but a habit as they call it in the schooles truelie grafted in vs not by nature but by gods meere and free grace But remember I pray you that by laying holde of Christ I vnderstand the apprehension or taking holde euen of Christ himselfe Two things principallie to be considered in Christ For wee must consider two things in Christ that is to saie hee himselfe god and man and such things as bee in him A fit similitude For example though it may be I confes that the similitude shall not agree in all points if in a casket or boxe I set before a man treasure he that will haue the treasure hidden or shutte vp therein must of necessitie take the casket or boxe it selfe Coloss 2.3 euen so there are in Christ all those treasures of wisedome and vnderstanding yea and to speake all in fewe wordes all those things which are necessarily required to our saluation Wherefore wee must of necessitie haue him that so we may obtaine those things that are in him and by the meanes of them eternall life But tell vs by what instrument wee doo take holde of him as it were by a certaine hand that hee may wholie become ours and wee his Verilie by faith Nowe the holie-ghost is hee who going about to woorke in vs this excellent instrument of faith vseth for that purpose the preachyng of the outwarde worde Roman 10.17 by which worde hee alone properlye woorketh inuisiblye in vs. But that we may the better vnderstand this point lette vs a little compare this naturall instrument of Faith to witte the outward worde with that supernaturall instrument that is the spirite Light of nature may somewhat helpe vs to obtaine naturall things but it can nothing further vs in the vnderstanding and beleeuing of heuenly things The doctor or teacher by speaking teacheth his scholers that which he speaketh For speech is the instrument and meane whereby we lay open the meaning of our mindes one of vs to an other by vnderstanding whereof they to whome wee speake become skilfull in those thinges that wee speake euen
Christes flesh is now also and that in deed and verilie present both into the heauens into which he ascended and in the earth likewise and that also in all places in which that bread and that wine is deliuered or giuen to such as come to receiue it I will say nothing of them that are not ashamed to affirme that Christes flesh euen from the verie first moment of the personall vnion was togither and in deed present both in the crib and in the heauen yea euerie where present To this first of all they answere The aduersaries obiection that Christes bodie cannot without great wickednesse be made subiect to the law of nature for that bodie that was taken into the vnitie of the person hath receiued farre other vnmeasurable giftes and graces But heere I beseech you wey well what we answer The answer We confesse that there is great regard to be had of that same grace and gift of the personall vnion by which wee cannot but confesse that the manhood of our sauior Christ was so highly exalted that onelie the Deitie or Godhead excepted according to which he is euen greater than himselfe it hath atteined and gotten a name which is aboue all names that is to saye Philip. 2.9.10 that all things created are subiected vnto the same yet for all that that followeth not heerevpon which these men coldlie suppose or fondly imagine for this is the question now betweene vs whether Christes manhood do in deed place it selfe euerie where or in manie places togither at one time to be receiued with our hands and mouth and not what it hath obteined from another or in respect of the other nature to which it is personallie vnited but rather whether this proprietie which in deed is proper to the Godhead alone be in the manhood to wit to be euerie where or in diuers places at one and the selfe same season Schoole men faile manie times in terms but now and then hit the matter And this is that matter which the schoolemen haue by a barbarous word if you respect terms but not by an vnfit word if men will wey the matter called by the name of habitual grace Now this difference being alreadie put downe which skarslie anie vnlesse they be altogither most contentious will denie we say that such doo in deed euacuat Christ or make him of no force as denie Christes flesh Though Christ man be not euerie where yet Christ God and man is euerie where as in respect of another that is to say not in it selfe but according as it is ioined to another to wit so farre foorth as it is personallie vnited with the person of the word to be truelie and in deed euerie where much lesse will wee denie him to be present in that place wheresoeuer in the worlde his supper is administred For whie should wee denie that concerning christs flesh which in a certaine measure hath place in al bodies yea euen there where som one whole thing is become or made one after an other sort than by personall vnion A similitude A tree or a house is many times saide to be in a riuer whereas yet notwithstanding the vpper part either of the one or of the other appearing aboue the water or riuer and being considered in it selfe is indeed in the aire and not in the water in like sort I am said to sit in this seat or chaire whereas yet notwithstanding I sit but in one part of my bodie onelie Likewise I am saide to speake whereas onelie the tongue considered in and by it selfe speaketh The reason and trueth of these speeches dependeth vpon this that a tree a house a man c is one selfesame whole thing compacted and made of his seueral partes For otherwise that coulde not be truely affirmed or saide of two things in deede separated and sundered one of them from an other Application of the similitude So a man may truely affirme whole christ to be euerie where and therfore much more with the bread in the supper and yet no otherwise but so farre foorth as Christ is considered as some one whole substance and beeing and so also as the proprieties of the natures bee not by this meanes confounded But the whole of Christe that is to saye euerye thing belonging to Christ can not therfore for all that bee sayde to bee anye where else than to bee conuersant in one place at one and the selfe-same time for that can no more be spoken of Christs humanitie in it selfe vnlesse wee will with Eutyches and Brentius Eutyches Brentius confounde the proprieties of either nature than this my hande can bee saide to sitte or these my feete may be said to speake If there be any that vnderstande not these things I beseech them to learne to vnderstande the same and to haue more regarde and consideration both of themselues and of others throgh whose sides they would if they could destroy the truth it selfe He turneth that vpon the aduersaries which they obiected against the truth To come to the point They doo not spotle the manhoode of Christ of that his infinite maiestie who teach that fleshe of his to be the flesh of the Sonne of God but they rather that transfourme and chaunge him who is God and man in one person and make him but to beare or cary God or the godhead neither yet do they spoile the manhood of his maiestie or bring him backe vnto the state and condition of other men which according to the grace that they call habituall that is to saye cleauing to the verie flesh of Christ as if it were to his peculiar subiect or matter wherevnto it shoulde sticke doo acknowledge it to bee vnspeakablye more high and excellent than all other thinges whatsoeuer wythout exception excepting onely the godhead of the worde according to which he himselfe is greater than himselfe as we said before but they indeede bring it to nothing or into some image or signe in their owne conceipts at the least who while they goe about to attribute supernaturall thinges vnto him attributing yet notwithstanding vnnatural things to him or thinges against nature do of necessity destroy and ouerthrowe euen mans nature it selfe for that ceaseth to be humane which hauing lost the essentiall proprieties thereof must needes cease to be the which before it was But we wil incounter with thē by an other reson If this verilie be to diminish Christs glorie and to debase his maiestie to affirme that hee can not indeede be at one time in manie places howe much more then must this be the debasing of hym to say that hee was mortall yea that hee did indeede die And yet wee see that this is that which the Apostle alleageth for the commendation of the most excellent loue that the Sonne of GOD carried towardes vs Rom. 5 6 7 8 c Philip. 2.8 which was yet so muche the more great and excellent by
to define the personal vnion not by the effusion or powring foorth of effectual graces but of vertues rather Moreouer vnderstand as large an effusion and powring foorth of giftes and graces into the flesh as possibly a man can I woulde faine see or heare some that coulde tell me how it shal not be a most open blasphemie for a man to affirme that the manhoode may by any meanes wythout robberie be made equall to the godhead What shall become of that sentence so often repeated in the ancient Fathers and olde writers to wit that the Sonne as in respect of his fleshe is lesse than the Father and inferiour vnto him yea and therefore lesse than himselfe and inferiour vnto him selfe because hee is as in respect of his godhead coequall with his Father Wherefore that interpretation is to bee refused as false yea as wholie and altogether sauoring of the heresie of Eutyches An other obiection of the aduersaries They alleadge yet this also The place saye they is not of the substaunce of a bodie and that therefore the substaunce of the body is not abolished though place bee taken away from it The answeare Certainely it would greeue me to the heart to beholde the maintainers of consubstantiation to bee so driuen to their shiftes that by propounding such absurde things they should giue themselues ouer to be scorned of the most popish and grose maintainers of Transubstantiation vpon whose foundation yet notwithstanding they builde vp their owne conceipts sauing that I see euen those very defenders of Transubstantiation themselues who haue bin broght vp with the teats of that most filthie sowe Sarbona to be so thrust to the wall in this point The name of a college in Paris where the popish diuines are maintained that they supposed that with this dirt the truth might be so dawbed ouer He very notably correcteth himselfe that it shoulde not lie open to euery mans eie and sight What woonderfull impudencie and shamelesnes is this beare wyth me brethren and pardon me O yee hearers this my most iust sorrow and greefe for men to deale so sophistically and subtilly in Gods church which is the schoole-house of trueth The worde Bodie in authors referred to two predicaments to wit substance and quantitie but yet in diuers respects Any man indued with reason can hardly be ignorant of this that this worde bodie is somtimes referred to substance and sometimes to quantity Therefore a bodie is sometimes called a corporall or bodilie substaunce consisting of matter forme and substaunce and sometimes it is called that which consisteth of three dimensions or mesurings to wit length bredth and depth So in this question somtimes wee consider Christs bodie as that same materiall substantiall visible and palpable thing which Christ tooke vnto him for our sake and after this sorte verilie quantitie as it is an accident is not parte of that substaunce And sometimes againe wee vse this worde bodie that so that which is defined by that three-fold quantitie may be the better distinguished and knowne The aduersaries must either conclude against reason or else yeelde to the trueth from that which is without quantitie And after this manner verily these men must either prooue that the definition dooth not declare the substance of these thinges which are defined or else they must with vs confesse that a bodie is nothing else but that verye three-folde quantitie continue as they call it that is to say such a quantitie as whose parts are ioined together in a common terme If this be once taken away it cannot be denied but that of necessitie christs true and very bodie must perishe whether wee consider it as it is glorified or as it is set in weaknesse yea Christ himselfe shall be accused of lieng who proueth the truth of his flesh euen after his resurrection by those inseparable accidents that is to say his corporall or bodily quantity He passeth to an other discourse touching the word Place Hitherto wee haue spoken of the bodie nowe let vs see what may be saide touching the place What if out of Augustines plaine and euident woordes wee shoulde saye Take from bodies space of places Augustine they shall be no where and because they shall be no where they shall not bee at all What will they say to this That is true in other bodies will they say but in Christs bodie not so or it agreeth not thereto But I answeare that it dooth most fitlie agree to Christes body of the absence of which from the earth Augustine dooth most properlie reason in that Epistle And truly if it were true that christs body were in diuerse respectes different from ours then he could not be of the selfe same substaunce with vs and like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted Hebr. 4.15 He explaneth the question I will adde yet somewhat more that the matter may appeare more plaine though by that which hath beene saide it be euident enough When wee affirme that a place can not be sundered or taken from a body that is from that thing which consisteth of three dimensions or measusurings before mentioned which thing the maintainers of consubstantiation do whē they flee to those same starting holes of his omnipotencie or almightie power which heereafter wee will God willing discouer wee meane not by this woorde place The word place considered after two sortes some peculiar space which by and by may be altered and changed as when Christ departing from one place went to an other for after this sorte this or that place is so euidēt to the body that by most light easy motion one being remoued or taken away another succedeth but we cal a place that same condition or state of a true very instrumentall body wherby it necessarily followeth that whersoeuer the thing it selfe is it must be circumscribed in that place or tied therto neither can it while it is there be in any other place This accident though it be not the verie substance of the body as in respect that the bodie it self is a substance yet verilie as it is a quantity it formeth frameth the body and it is an inseparable accident of the body aswell as of the substance So that there is no man I suppose but hee vnderstandeth how vaine and sophisticall that exception is But say they Christs body walked vpon the waters therefore they do not presently take away the truth of Christes body An other obiection with the answere therto Math. 14.25 c. that attribute vnto it an extraordinary condition or such a state as can not be declared And who I pray you denieth this or any part of it The question is not whether Christ as in respect of his flesh and that in the time of his infirmitye and weaknes also coulde accomplish many things ouer and beside the ordinary lawes of mans nature But this is the question The state of the
controuersie euen that such is Christes bodie namelie that it hath alwaies beene must of necessitie for euer be a verie or true bodie and therefore also circumscriptible and tied to a place The third reason Yea this I say further that God cannot be created by God nor that a thing created can be turned into God for if there were manie gods he could not be God to whō another created wer equall neither could that created god so called abusiuelie be God because that to be God to haue a beginning of time or in time are merelie cōtradictorie things or speeches The conclusion of this point Christs flesh therfore could not become the Godhead therfore could it not be indued with the incommunicable proprieties of the Godhead that is to say with such proprieties belonging to the Godhead as cannot be cōmunicated to any other but the Godhead alone amongst which this to be infinit to be wholie at one time euerie where is not reckoned in the last place Is this I pray you to deny Gods almightie power or do we in this follow the vngodlines of the blasphemous felow Plinie Plinius and his errors for he denieth that God is able to bestow immortalitie vpon mortall people or to call backe again such as are dead which is not only falslie but wickedly spoken also The selfe same partie denieth that God is able to kill himselfe or to bring to passe Truth may be propounded by some though they perhaps doo not well vnderstand the cause thereof that he that hath liued and is now dead should not haue liued then when he liued or that twise ten should not be twentie And heer in howsoeuer he fel fouly in the former he hath not missed the truth but rightlie denied these things to be in God onelie heerein he did most beastlie slip The cause why God cannot do some things is not so much want of power in him as because he cannot or will not be found contrarie to his nature that not knowing or beleeuing the nature of God he would haue these things to be arguments and proofs of Gods imbecilitie and weaknesse wheras contrariwise we know and beleeue that he cannot therefore doo these things because he himselfe cannot perish nor lie nor be changed But loe we are now at the length come to them who seeme most equall and vpright aboue all other who also auoiding all other forgeries and deuises doo stay themselues onelie vpon these wordes of Christs This is my bodie Such answered as vrge the bare words This is my bodie and This cup is my bloud we must say they beleeue Christes wordes though he speake neuer so new and vnaccustomed matters yea though he speake things that our flesh and sences cannot beleeue We grant all this But what if they seeme not agreeable to the truth and the analogie or proportion of faith Verilie they are to be beleeued indeed seeing that the sonne of God is the truth it selfe yet these things or points must be so expounded Two rules meet to be obserued in expounding such places as seeme contrarie to truth that they may altogither agree with the 1 rest of the places of holie scripture and the cheefe 2 groūds or heads of christian religion for whatsoeuer doth dissent though it be neuer so little from these rules must of necessitie be false and vnsound Now we haue heeretofore at large declared and prooued that such and so corrupt is that interpretation which establisheth either transubstantiation or a reall consubstantiation of the signes and the things signified Two christian frutes arising by expounding the words of the supper sacramentallie But on the other side if we grant a sacramentall being of the thing signified which as it is true in other sacraments so also in this mystery then we shall preserue 1 the truth of Christes flesh and vphold 2 the analogie and proportion of faith Wherefore this interpretation is to be admitted receiued as true and well agreeing with right and sound doctrine An obiection answered But say they there is no place heere for a trope or figure yea the verie plaine word is simplie to be obserued But who I beseech you hath giuen you this rule speciallie sith this is most manifest yea and so vsuall also that when they speake of sacraments which also are themselues figures they speake figuratiuelie Neither thinke I that anie man can skarslie bring foorth or allege an example of a contrarie speech You must therefore allege a cause or render a reason why that which is of force in other sacraments shuld not likewise be of strēgth and power in this sacrament or speech touching the same But let vs some what more nighlie looke into the matter and well wey all and euerie of the words of institution First I demand what the thing is pointed at or painted out by this Pronoune demonstratiue Hoc that is The Pronounce Hoc that is This expounded This. The papists answer that it is an identicall proposition that is The popish opinion declared and confuted that one and the selfe same thing speaketh of it selfe and that therfore nothing is shewed forth but euen the verie bodie it selfe as if a man should say This thing is my bodie But we say that of necessitie that must be demonstrated shewed which he hauing taken broken did deliuer vnto his disciples to wit bread which thing also the apostle hath declared when hee said The bread which we breake 1. Corinth 10.16 Is it not the cōmunicating of the bodie of Christ And the word rup added in the other member or part of the institution of the supper doth plainlie prooue to all men that are not vtterlie contentious that this word this is as much as if Christ shuld say this bread And heere I confesse there is no trope at all the reason is because it was needfull for vs to haue the signe properlie fitlie declared that we might not be deceiued But our aduersaries among whom also a trope is almost as odious as an heresie being demanded Vbiquitaries or consubstantiators and thier opinions declared confuted What answer they Verilie that vnder this Pronoune Hoc that is This there is set out vnto vs both the bread and the bodie also that is to say both the signe the thing signified Their opinion is contrarie being in verie deed essentiallie vnited togither as they say To scripture But as erewhile I said 1 Paule vseth the onelie word bread and certeine it is that that was shewed whiche Christe took brake To the nature of Christs body Shall 2 we say that he took and brake his owne bodie Certeinelie if they will so affirme this reall coniunction of the signes the thing signified To their owne opinions shall 3 not depend vpon the words of institution seeing that euen before that Christ tooke it and brake
of Christ as they will needes haue it The former of these I grant to wit that by the cuppe should be meant the wine contained in the cup but the latter I denie to wit that that wine should be in substance the very bloud of Christ and this I do deny standing vpon the reasons which I haue before spoken and alleaged But howsoeuer it be whether there be meant therby this wine alone or together with the wine euen the bloud it selfe yet needes must these deadly enimies of tropes and figures acknowledge one figure here to wit a Metonomia of the thing containing for the thing contained yea and that same verie trope of the same figure Synecdoche which wee haue spoken of before wherby it commeth to passe that the wine and the bloud are saide to be the bloud Now then let them tel me how See for the proofe of this Genesis 17.9 without a crope or figure that shall be counted the couenant it selfe by meanes whereof the couenant is established And yet this further I would gladly demaund of them if the bare word or letter being so precisely obserued that reall consubstantiation must of necessity ensue how it can be that this should not followe likewise that the signes beeing not onely distincted but in very deede and truth separated and sundered also the body it selfe shoulde not likewise in deede bee separated and sundered from the bloud Consubstantiation erronious and al that is obiected for iâ— most weake I many times thinking and that earnestly of this one matter to wit why diuers did so greatly vrge this same rule Consubstantiation euen as if it were the principall point of all our religion of a truth nothing could come into my minde but that which was most easie to be confuted As for the that they say An obiection that vnles Christs very body and his very bloud be beleeued to be so present that it may be receiued with the hands and with the mouth or else the bread and the wine shall be but emptie and void signes I say it is of no force In good sooth suppose yee that yee speake the trueth Belike then all the sacraments that the Fathers had The answeare â—â—ken from an absurditie before that Christs flesh was indeede created were voide and of no force Their Sacraments saith Augustine were in signes diuers but in matter equall But in what matter were they equall Euen in Christ the only matter of the sacraments for that same spirituall word that is as the selfe-same writer vpon the 77. August in psa 77 psalme expoundeth it signifieng some spirituall thing was Christ they did eat the same meat that we eat 1. Corint 10.2.3 and did drinke the same drinke to wit Christ that was to be born as we eat and drinke Christ alredy borne who is a spirituall meat and drinke How vntrue therefore is it that the signes are of no force except the thing signified being in deede also present bee coupled and ioyned with the signe 2 A second reson standing vpon comparison of the element of baptisme with the elements of the supper Yea shall we say that the water of Baptisme is an idle signe yet I neuer hard of any man that would say that the bloud of Christ was indeede consubstantiated together wyth the wine But against this they replie saieng the reason or cause of that is because the Lord saide not that that water was his bloud Let vs grant that and yet in the meane while wee haue gained this that the sacrament is not abolished or made of no force though the signe bee in one place and the thing signified thereby bee in an other so that both of them be truly offered and giuen And this much or hitherto haue we spoken of this third point that is to say of the sacramentall coniunction or ioyning of the signe with the thing signified Now the summe of this true and right beleeuing iudgement is this to wit The summe of that which hath bin saide touching the sacramental coniunction of the sigâ— and the thing signified that that is a sacramentall coniunction wherby it commeth to passe that through gods ordinance that which is signified by the signes vsed though nowe it be neuer so farre from vs I meane Christ himselfe as in respect of his flesh is yet notwithstanding through the power of the holie ghost but yet in suche a spirituall sorte and manner as wee shall declare heereafter as truely and verily offered vnto vs and giuen vs to be enioyed of vs as verily as the signes themselues are looked vpon wyth the eies touched with the handes and receiued and perceiued also wyth the mouth But let vs now come at the length The fourth or last part of this discourse to the fourth or last question and points to wit what manner of taking or receiuing there is both of the signs themselues and of the thing signified Concerning the taking or receiuing of the signs there is no controuersie or doubt made of it A syllogisme but that it is naturall and outward because it is manifestly and plainely perfourmed of all them that come vnto it by bodily instruments and meanes The maior But as for the things signified to wit that very flesh of Christ and that very bloud of his they are so receiued and taken euen as they are present and offered The minor But they are present and offered also to our mind and faith because they are nowe as wee haue saide not on earth The conclusion but in heauen and therefore they can not bee taken or receiued otherwise than by our minds and faith Augustine Augustine also speaking well and rightly touching this point after this manner Why preporest thou thy mouth and bellie This foode belongeth not to the bellie but to the minde Beleeue and thou hast eaten Wherevpon also this likewise followeth that all that come to the Lordes table as the same Augustine saith receue the body of the lord Augustine that is to say the sacrament of the Lordes body to wit the bread vsed at may be one euen as thou and I are one And in one worde as you would say to finish the matter if onelie the members of Christ are to be saued then they must needes confesse that wee are thorowe faith truelye grafted into Christ and that euen before wee come to the supper in so muche as no manne can rightlye and orderlye come to the supper which is not nowe already both in baptisme and in the worde That followeth not that the aduersaries fantasie become a member of Christe and therefore is vnited with Christe him selfe And yet it dooeth not heerevppon followe that the institution of the Supper is superfluous by which wee doo not indeede at the first pushe but yet notwithstanding in processe of time doo growe vppe more and more in Christ For him that wee doo alreadye possesse must
admonished to refer all that they doo to the glory of their head and capteine Christ and to the mutuall comfort and sustentation one of another Out of all that hitherto hath beene spoken or said I would pray the godlie and well affected reader diligently to obserue and note these three things following 1 First that though it be most true that euen by the ministerie of the Gospell preached we haue Christ with all his benefits offered vnto vs and doo by faith wrought in our harts by the ministerie of the same word and working of his spirit take hold of him all his graces of which also S. Paule speaketh to the Galachians saieng Galath 3.1 that Christ was described in their sight and crucified amongst them that yet all this notwithstanding we haue him more plainelie and plentifullie set foorth vnto vs in the vse of the supper whilest that we by faith feeding on him that is the bread of life which came downe from heauen Iohn 6.51 are by that meanes become bone of his bones Ephes 5.30 and flesh of his flesh and after a sort made one with him Iohn 17.21.22 euen as the father and he are one which I speake not to the debasing of the word as though the sacraments were more woorthie and excellent or to the diuiding of Christ for as in respect of his substance he is but one both in the word and the sacraments but as in respect of vs and for our weakenesse sake we hauing more of our sences satisfied in and by the vse of the elements of the Lords supper as for example our sight our tast our feeling yea and our hearing also whilest that in the deliuerie and partaking thereof Christes death is preached vnto vs than we haue in the word which is directed onelie to the eare or hearing 2 Secondlie that this holie sacrament dooth not onelie direct our faith to the death and passion of our sauiour Christ which was performed for vs and all the faithfull manie hundered yeeres agone as the one Hebr. 9.28 Hebr. 10.14 and the onelie sacrifice for sinne neuer to be reiterated because that thereby he being the onelie high priest and eternall sacrificer hath consecrated for euer all them that are sanctified but also yea cheeflie and especiallie to the gracious frutes and effectes that wee receiue thereby as the forgiuenesse of sinnes our reconciliation to GOD the death of iniquitie in vs the assured pledge of eternall life and such like all which are liuelie set foorth and preached vnto vs in the same to the ende that wee maye by faith in a strong persuasion of Gods goodnesse towards vs in Christ be made partakers thereof For otherwise if we had but Christes death onelie and nothing else it would be little auailable to vs for what would it haue profited vs that he had died if by his death he had not brought life and immortality to light 2. Tim. 1.10 but for asmuch as his death and the effects and frutes following the same and flowing from it can not be sundered we therefore stedfastlie beleeue that the faithfull are neuer partakers of the one alone but that also they are partakers of the other likewise 3 Thirdlie that wee must certeinelie know and stedfastlie beleeue that though this holie sacrament doo speciallie and cheeflie direct vs to Christ his death merits obedience and the frutes thereof yet notwithstanding also it doth sensiblie and plainelie instruct vs in the speciall duties of that sound and sincere loue which in Christ and for Christ we as the members of that bodie whereof he is the only head Ephes 1.22 5.23 ought vnfeinedlie to carrie and accomplish one of vs towardes another not onelie as profitable and necessarie for the parties to whome such dueties are performed whilest in the daies of their distresse we releeue them by our wealth or comfort and councell them by our wit which are things that God hath giuen vs euen to the same end but comfortable also to our selues whilest by that as by a bage or cognizance we are knowne both to others and our selues to be Christes disciples in deed Iohn 13.35 and haue sealed vp in our hearts the free pardon and full forgiuenes of all our sinnes Luke 7.47 Iohn 3.14 and an assured pledge also that we are translated out of darknesse into light without the which all we haue in this life and therefore the sacraments also could tend but to our greater condemnation In the third place for the cleering of this controuersie or question of the Lords supper we must haue a watchfull eie to Satans subtleties who painfully laboureth in this point as in all other pointes of Christian religion also by extremities to drawe vs into all corruption Nowe the extremities that in time heeretofore haue burst foorth and are yet euen to this day in manie places stoutlie and stiflie mainteined are especiallie three 1 The first is that of the sacramentaries who hold and defend that Christ in his supper hath left vs nothing saue the bare and naked signes of his death and passion But the trueth is that we are so farre off from allowing this conceit and opinion whatsoeuer our aduersaries babble and prate to the contrarie that wee feare not openlie and in the sunne light to affirme that besides the signes themselues yea and euen togither with the signes wee and all true christians haue the thinges themselues signified not onelie truelie and effectuallie exhibited vnto vs but giuen vs also and bestowed vpon vs because it is most certeine that our Sauiour Christ Iohn 14.6 who is the trueth it selfe and cannot lie dooth in deede and assuredlie accomplish vnto vs all the promises which hee made vs and meant to seale vnto vs by the vse of the signes in the sacrament that so we might become partakers euen of his verie substance and grow vp also with him into one life and being And though this cannot be comprehended by the eie of mans reason and vnderstanding no more than manie other things in our christian religion yet we cannot choose but know and confesse that this is sensiblie set foorth vnto vs in the vse and participation of the supper by seuerall meanes and instruments some of them being outward as the elements in the sacrament and some inward as the spirituall grace represented thereby for we are not angels but men Eccle. 12.7 consisting as the scripture teacheth vs of bodie and soule and therefore the Lord by the vse of his word and sacraments hath prouided for both parts as the word for our eares Rom. 10.17 and our eares for hearing of the same that so faith might be wrought in our hearts and the elements in the sacrament for our tast sight feeling c and yet our soules to be nourished and fed not with anie or all of these outward things for how cā outward corruptible things nourish inward immortall substances but onelie with
and soule of the church it selfe The veritie and certeintie wherof though it lie in Christ 1. Cor. 1.20 because in him al Gods promises are yea and amen yet the particular applications of the same to our owne harts must come from the powerfull working of the holie spirit But how shall we come to the effectuall feeling of these if the force of the spirit be not shed abrode into our hearts or how can the holie spirit be called the pledge of Gods promises Ephes 1.13 and the earnest penie of our adoption and saluation if that promise of our sauior Christ be not accomplished or how can we find comfort against the feare of death or peace in our consciences against the sight of sinne and iudgement due vnto vs for the same without this Of a truth the remembrance of our dissolution and departure hense this being remooued shall be greeuous and the horrour of hell the iust punishment of our iniquitie will be readie euery houre to ouerwhelme vs. Wee need not stand long vpon this point either this must be true that wee haue the Holie ghost in most abundant measure by the bodilie absence of our sauior Christ giuen to the church as before is said and proued and so a spirituall supplie bestowed vpon vs for a bodiely want that being more excellent than this because the apostle saith that hensefoorth we know no man after the flesh 2. Corinth 5.16 yea though we had knowne Christ after the flesh yet now henseforth know we him no more or else if Christ be heere bodilie present the Holy ghost is not yet come nor the apostles indued with miraculous graces nor the fulnesse of the Gentils gathered in nor the comfort and peace of the church prouided for all which are fearefull to thinke vpon but much more horrible to feele and in deed are quite cleane contrarie to the truth of the word and if we had no more but onlie the second chapter of the Acts of the apostles it were sufficient to ouerthrow the same 6 Sixtlie this assertion dooth not onelie closelie but openlie accuse Christ himselfe of manifest lieng vntrueth who as both the prophets and apostles doo beare witnesse did no sinne Isaiah 53.9 1. Peter 2.22 neither was there any guile found in his mouth He himselfe hath plainlie told vs The poore ye haue alwaies with you Marke 14.7 and when yee will ye may doo them good but me yee shall not haue alwaies And againe elswhere Iohn 14.2 I go to prepare a place for you If this be not blasphemie to doo what we can to taint him with falshood that is both truth it selfe and the author of all truth I know not what is blasphemie And yet this iniquitie staieth not heere for it depriueth vs first of the comfort of the forgiuenesse of sinnes because if our sauiour haue beene tainted with anie manner of iniquitie though neuer so small he cannot be a price and ransome for sin because he that must recommit sinners to God must of necessitie be free from transgression Secondlie it dooth as it were violentlie take and pull from vs the hope that we haue of the heauenlie inheritance For why hath our sauior Christ sundred himselfe for a space from vs as in respect of his bodilie presence not yet leauing vs comfortlesse for he hath giuen vs his spirit to supplie as it were his absence but to the end that we might heereafter in time to come most comfortablie enioye him bothe in bodie and soule for euermore Dooth not hee himselfe say Iohn 16.16 Yet a little while and yee shall not see me and againe a little while and ye shall see me for I go to my father And in another place Though I go to prepare a place for you Iohn 14 3. yet will I come againe and receiue you vnto my selfe that where I am there may yee be also And yet all this notwithstanding superstitious and brainesicke people dare with open mouth affirme that we haue him continuallie with vs here vpon earth and that not in respect of his spirituall power and presence onelie wherevnto we our selues most gladlie yeeld as a verie principall comfort vnto vs in the daies of all our distresses because in that respect as God eternall with his father we beleeue that he filleth all places both in heauen and in earth and is said to be with the beleeuers euen vnto the end of the world Matth. â—3 20 but as in respect of his corporall and bodilie presence also than the which nothing vndoubtedlie can be more false and absurd as hath beene sufficientlie shewed alreadie and plainelie prooued before Now hauing waded thus farre in the trueth and certeinetie of the matter it selfe wee might safelie shut vp and conclude this point but that there remaine sundrie of the aduersaries obiections to be answered wherin I cannot but let the godlie reader vnderstand that I minde not to answer either all of them or manie of them because the most in trueth be friuolous and vaine and it would be ouer tedious to wade into such idle and vnprofitable matter Three there are in deede which because they seeme to be of speciall strength and ordinarie vse I can not let passe Two of them are taken from the words of the text of holie scripture and the third from the omnipotencie and almightie power of our sauiour Christ which though they be common things in deed and such as might as easilie be reiected as obiected because the controuersie is not touching the plaine wordes of the text and the almightie power of Christ as God for be it far from vs to be so absurd as to draw things of such euidency and excellencie into question but we striue rather as for the true sence naturall meaning of the wordes so for the veritie of Christes person and the essentiall properties of either his distincted natures yet we cannot but both for the strengthening of them that be weake and ignorant in the same as also for the discharge of our conscience before God and man but in a word or two as it were make a short but withal a sound sufficient and true answer I hope to euery one of these three seuerallie and by themselues 1 The first place obiected is these words of our sauiour in the gospell after Iohn Except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man Iohn 6.13 and drinke his bloud ye haue no life in you Weerevnto I answer first that neither these words neither the rest of the chapter can in anie probabilitie or shew of reason properlie be vnderstood of the Lords supper And if we had no more for it but this yet were this sufficient because at that time the supper it selfe was not instituted and ordeined but a long while after as in the euangelists writings dooth plainelie appeare but must rather be referred to our spirituall communicating or partaking with Christ by the meanes of a liuelie