Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 10
Diuision 10.
HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit N. P.indeede to be answered. For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there, make such an inference? Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion (which tediously and needelesly he prooueth,) But they are not so in the Eucharist: Ergo, the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it. For if the Argument were good, we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus (for example) after he had blessed and brake bread, he vanished out of the Disciples sight; when he hid himselfe from the Iewes, who would hauehave stoned him, in the Temple, not by running into a corner (as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine) but by becomming vndiscernable by them; as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built, whence they ment to tumble him. As if locall extension, visibilitie, palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof. This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour.
MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of T. G.Christs Body, which hath slesh, blood and bones, is an organicall body, endued with limmes and lineaments, yea and life too. Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist, is (as Epiphanius well obserueth) liuelesse and limmelesse, &c. Now here, (according to his vsuall manner) he letteth the Argument goe, and falleth to raile downe right; that it is an argument grossely carnall, and vnfit indeede to be answered, of a babbling and ignorant person, and a stupide professour. He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him. Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it; he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise: Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion:
But they are not so in the Eucharist: ergò
Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh, blood and bones, and sense and life, and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall. But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these. And then he telleth vsus that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when cLuk. 24. 31. No more was done with Christ here, then with Philip. Act. 8. 39.at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples; when dIoh. 8. 59.he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would hauehave stoned him in the Temple; when eLuk. 4. 30.he passed through the midst of them that would hauehave thrown him downe head-long, &c.
1. Let him prooue vntounto vsus that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure, as his Disciples had, fLuk. 24. 39.when hee appeared vntounto them after his passion and resurrection, (which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse) did finde it and feele it to hauehave neither hands, nor feete, flesh blood, nor bone, life nor limme; and the consequence shall then bee granted him; but neuer till then. And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had, when hee was here on earth, the same he retaineth still. Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still, and other bodily limmes and lineaments; gAug. epist. 149. Ego Domini corpus ita in coelo esse credo, vt erat in terra, &c.I beleeue (saith he) that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth, when he went vp into heauen. For so h…uk. 24. 38, 39.when the Disciples doubted, whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw, he had them see and feele his hands and feete: for that a spirit had not flesh and bones, as they saw that hee had. So he was on earth; so he was seene to be when he went to heauen; and so shall he, as iAct. 1. 11.the Angell told, come againe from thence. But such (wee are sure) their little breaden God is not. It is none of Christ therefore.
2. Looke how this man argueth, so did the Heret…kes of old, to prooue our Sauiour Christ to hauehave an aiery, spirituall, aad fantasticall body. kIoan. Hieroscl. Ep in Fpist Hieren. contr. …rror. ….Let it not deceiue you, you simple sots, (saith Iohn of Ierusalem) when you reade that lIoh. 20. 27.Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side, or when you heare him say, that he hath mL…k. 24. 3….flesh and bones: These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples. But he shewed that hee had an ai…ry and spirituall body in truth, when nIoh. 2. 19.he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut, and oLuk. 24. 31.hee vanished out of their sight. And to the like purpose did pTertul. contr. Mare. l. 4 & Hieron. ad Pāmachi.the Marci…nites vrge his qLuk. 4. …0.escape frō those of Nazareth. Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer? rTertul, cōtr. Marc lib. 4.That Christs body (saith Tertullian) is no fancy euer, hereby appeareth, in that it end…red violent handling, when hee was taken and held, and haled to the hill-brow. For sEtsi per medios euasit, sed ante iam vim expertus, & poste à dimissus scil. soluto, vti assolet, tumultu, vel etiam irrupto, non tamen per caliginem eluso &c.albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them, being first forcibly held, and after let goe, either the throng being dissolued, or forcibly broken through; yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion. For he had a true body still, and hands that hee touched others still with, and were by them felt; (and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was.) And againe, tIdem contr. eund. lib. 5.when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet, without doubt he hath hands, and feet, and bones, which a spirit hath not. And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem; uHieron. ad Pāmach. contra error. Ioan. Hieros.As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side; so hee ate truely with them, spake with his tongue truely to them, and with his hands truely brake, and reached them out bread. For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight; as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them, that is, he made an escape out of their hands, *Virtus Dei est, non vmbtae aut phantasmatis.it was done by his diuine power, not by any fantasticall delusion. “Quod Magis licet, hoc Domino non licet? Apollonius, &c. repente non comparuit. Noli potentiam Domini Magorū praestigiis coaequa re, vt videatur fuisse quod nō suit, comedisse sine dentibus, fregisse panem sine manibus, ambulasse sine pedibus, locutus sine lingua, latus …stendisse sine costis.Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians hauehave done? Apollonius, as he stood in the Court before Domitian, vanished suddenly out of sight. Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not, to eate without teeth, breake bread without hands, walke without feet, speake without tongue, shew a side without ribs. And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that xLuk. 24. 16.those two Disciples did not know him, till a little before hee left them; yHieron. ibid.Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe, that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene, but because their eyes were held that they might not know him. And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages, zIdem in Epitaph. Paulae.Christ (saith hee) had hands and sides, had breast and bellie too: he that had hands and feete, had armes and thighes too. And seeing hee had all the members of the body, hee must needs hauehave a whole body that consisteth of those members. Let vsus reason backward, as well wee may. If Christ hauehave an entire body consisting of those limmes, then he hath all those limmes, whereof such a body consisteth. And then let vsus say to these, as he then to them, aIdem. ibid.You heare of flesh, and feet, and hands, and other limmes. And bSticorum globos & a… ria quaedam deliramenta.doe you forge vsus some cGlobosam siue rotundā formam Diis dabant Stoici. Ex Sen ep. 94. Lips. physiol. Stoic. l. 1. c. 8.Stoicall round bals, and aiery dotages. (As these doe little round wafer-cakes, which they beare vsus downe to be Christs body.) He alludeth to the Stoicks, who held that the Gods had some shape; and dNec tamen ea species corpus est sed quasi corpus; nec habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem. C…c. de nat. Deor. l. 1.that shape was as a body, but yet no body; and had as it were blood and yet no blood. Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them, (and our Romanists at this day with either) imagining our Sauiour (eTertul. de carne Christi & contr. Marc. saith Tertullian) to hauehave fVt carnem gestaret sine ossibus durā, sine mus. ulis solidam, sine sanguine cruen…, sine tunica vestitam, sine same esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lin… …quer tē.flesh hard without bones, solide without muscles, bloody without blood, clad without coate, speaking without tongue, eating without teeth, &c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth, that since Christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his Descipl…s, they that imagined such a Christ as this, gEcce …, decipit, circumuenit omnium o…ulos, sensus, access…s, contactus. Ergò Christum non de coelo deferre debueras, sed de caetu aliquo circul…torio, spectaculi artificem, non salutis Pontificem,that deceiueth, beguileth, and deludeth all mens eyes, and senses and touchings, (and taste too hee might hauehave said, we at least may say) should not bring him from heauen (from whence the Marcionites said their Christ had his body, though the Papists dare not say, they hauehave theirs from thence) but fetch him rather out of some hSo translate I him, aliuding to our Enlish phrase. His sense is apparent.iuglers box (the Popish pyx, or the like) not to worke saluation, but to make sport with. This I hauehave the rather insisted vponupon to shew how the Papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden God; and strange fantasticall body, that hath all parts of a mans body, and yet none at all to be seen, felt, heard, yea or vnderstood, with the Hereticks of old time; and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same Arguments that they then did, by the ancient Fathers long since answered: As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them, that we doe now against these; which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered.
§ 2. Oh but (saith hee) it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor, to hold that locall extention, visiblitie, palpability, and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it.
1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to hauehave recourse to Gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage, or in their lying Legends they hauehave endeauoured to obtrude vponupon the world: To say that God can make Christs body to remaine still in his full stature, and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth, or goe downe a childs throat, or to make *Ex vi Sacramenti sub specie panis continentur, non solum caro, sed totum corpus Christi, soil. osla & nerui, & alia huiusmodi; non enim dicitur, Haec est caro mea, sed, Hoc est corpus meum. Thom. Aq sum. part 3. q. 76. a. 1. ad 2.a mans body consisting of flesh, blood and bone to hauehave no dimensions or extention at all, not other accidents and properties of a naturall body; is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be, to be a body and no body; which implyeth contradiction. And iQuae contradictionem implicant, sub divina omnipotentia non continentur. Idem ibid. part. 1. q. 25. a 3.those things that imply contradiction, they thē selues grant that God cannot doe. For it were to make falshood truth; which hee that is kElohim emeth Deus veri…as. Ier. 10. 10. Ioh. 14. 6.Truth it selfe can neuer doe.
2. In this very manner also did the Heretickes reason as appeareth by Theodoret, to maintaine their absurd dotages against the Orthodox Christians, who likewise answered them then, as wee doe these now. mforeign. Eranista apud Theod. dial 1. & 3.There is nothing (saith the Hereticke) that God cannot doe. Wee say, that nMar. 10. 27.all things are possible with God. And Iob saith, that oIob. 42. 2.God can doe all things, and there is nothing impossible with him. There is nothing therefore but he can doe, that is able to doe all things. Now how doth the Orthodoxe disputer answer this? pTheodoret. ibid 3.God (saith hee) can do qPsal. 115. 3. & 135. 6.whatsoeuer he will: But rforeign.God neither can doe, nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature. As for example sIam. 1. ….he cannot sin; tTit. 1. 13.hee cannot ly, uPsal. 92. 15.nor do any vniust thing, being iustice and truth it selfe. xforeign.Many things there are therefore that God, that can doe all things, yet cannot doe. Yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them, no argument at all of any impotency in him. This was deemed a sufficient answere to those Heretikes then; and may as well now be returned our Popish Adversaries, fighting with the same weapons that they then did, for points as absurd as euer any of them held.