Propositions and Principles of Divinity Disputed, Section 62
PRINCIPLES TOVCHING CONSVBSTANTIATION. LXII.
WEE HAVE ALREADIE DISPVTED, concerning Tranſubſtantiation: Conſubſtantiation being the neereſt error vntounto it, is now to be handled.
1 COnſubſtantiation conſiſteth in this, that the bodie and blood of the Lord, is ſaid to bee corporally, naturally, and really preſent; in, vnderunder, and with the bread and the wine.
2 It hath this common with Tranſubſtantiation, that in both of them, the wordes of the inſtitution, are in a prepoſterous ſort ſtiflie maintained, without any regard vntounto the meaning: Although that in verie deed, the wordes are chaunged in both, by the fained interpretations whereby they are expounded: whence manie abſurdities doe follow.
3 Firſt, in that both of them doe take away the force & nature of a Sacrament, which conſiſteth in this, that two thinges ſhould bee in them; namely, earthly, elementarie, and ſignifiyng; then heauenly, inuiſible, and ſignified: both which are ſeuerallie conſidered, not as they are ſomething abſolutely and ſimply exiſting of their own nature, but as there is a mutuall compariſon and referrence between them, whereby the ſignes do repreſent the things ſignified are repreſented.
4 Next, Tranſubſtantiation maketh that the thing is not that, which it is, and that it is that, which it is not: but Conſubſtantiation maketh that two things indeed, are become one.
5 Thirdly, this doctrine doth include contrarieties: for it affirmeth, that the ſame body is receiued both naturally and ſupernaturallie; whereas the truth doth teach, that the ſignes are naturally, and the things ſignified ſupernaturallie participated.
6 For the receiuing of the mouth, and alſo the helpe of the other ſenſes, are heere required by the inſtitution of Chriſt, to the ende, that that which is naturall and corporall, may performe his owne office: the operation alſo of the mind and faith is eſpeciallie to be preſent; that what is ſpirituall, may be receiued by ſpirituall inſtruments.
7 Yet wee confeſſe, that the bodie and blood of Chriſt is offered bodilie, that is, corporallie in the holie Supper: But after the ſame manner, that PAVLE ſaith, that all the God-head doth dwell in him corporally; that is trulie and fullie: the Lord performing without all doubt, that which hee promiſed.
8 And although the bodie of Chriſt, be of it ſelfe a naturall ſubſtaunce, and contained within the dimenſions or limites thereof; yet is it not materially, but ſpiritually eaten of vsus. For the fleſhe would hauehave profited vsus nothing, but the Spirite and life: yet we may ſay in ſome ſenſe, that the bread and the wine, are the bodie and the blood: and that the bodie and the blood are fed-vponupon, namely, in a Sacramentall manner.
9 This Doctrine alſo, is directly contrary vntounto that end of the inſtitution, whereby Chriſt commaunded vsus, to celebrate his memorie. For if hee bee preſent, his memorie cannot be called vntounto our remembraunce, except wee will ſpeak very vnproperlie: ſeeing things paſt and not preſent, are called into memorie.
10 Againe, it doth aboliſh the nature of Chriſts bodie: For if the ſame be thus receued by eueryevery one in particuler, it muſt needs be, both preſent in infinit places at once, and alſo be infinite of it ſelfe: The which point, is contrary vntounto the Articles of our beliefe, whereby we beleeue, that hee was true man; that hee was borne, ſuffered, dead, riſen againe, aſcended vp into heauen.
11 Furthermore, if the receiuing of Chriſt were corporall, the ancient Church vnderunder the law, had not bene partaker of his bodie, becauſe the ſame was not as yet borne: which point is contrarie vntounto the Apoſtle, who ſaith, that the Fathers did receiue the ſame ſpirituall meate, and the ſame ſpirituall drinke.
12 Further, if Chriſt were corporally preſent, he ſhould be eaten without reſpect both of the badde, and the good, which is imposſible. For to eat the fleſh of Chriſt, is to beleeue in Chriſt, to be joyned with Chriſt, and to be drawen from death vntounto life; which can by no meanes agree vntounto the wicked.
13 For they, as AVGVSTINE ſaith, do onelyonly receiue the bread of the Lorde, but not the bread which is the Lorde: which bread, is alſo vntounto them, not a ſign of Chriſts bodie, but meerely bread: euen as the Sacrifice of the wicked, are by the Prophet HOSEAH, not called ſacrifice, but only fleſh. Yet doth GOD juſtlie puniſh in them, the contempt of his grace offered.
14 Againe, ſeeing the queſtion in this point, is onelie touching the ſoule, and the feeding thereof, to offer a corporall thing therevnto, is to bee ignorant of the nature of things, and to mingle heauenly and earthly things togeather: ſeing that eating of Chriſts bodie with the mouth, (if it could be poſsiblie done) could not reach vntounto the ſoule, but onelyonly vntounto the bodie. And as the blood of Chriſt, doth not waſh them that are corporallie dipped thereunto, (the which thing might hauehave come to paſſe vntounto the very Iews, that tormented him:) But thoſe, who apprehend the force and efficacie thereof by true faith: for they eat his bodie, and drinke his blood, who ſpiritually (yet not by imagination, but truly as hath bin ſaid) apprehend him as he is giuen vntounto vsus of the Father.
15 Laſt of all, Conſubſtantiation cannot be eſtabliſhed by the woordes of the inſtitution: For Chriſt did not ſay, Heere is my bodie; that is, in, vnderunder, or with the bread, but this is; that is, this bread is my bodie: And it were abſurd to ſay, that Chriſt, who reached the bread vntounto his Diſciples, was corporally in, vnderunder, and with that bread.
16 Now, the ſimilitude of Iron beeing red hotte, of an infant lying in his ſwathes, of wine contained in the veſſel, are ſo groſſe, that they need no confutation: for theſe conjunctions are natural, wherby new qualities are aplied vntounto bodies, & ſubſtances are joined vntounto ſubſtances: wheras al things in the Supper ar ſupernatural, depēding vponupon the inſtitution of Chriſt. Yea, and that ſupernatural conjunction, whereby the Deitie of Chriſt is perſonally vnited vntounto his humanitie, can hauehave no place in this argument: nor yet that miraculous conjunction, whereby, GOD taking vponupon him certain viſible formes, did manifeſt himſelf vntounto ſome; It followeth then, that this compulation is Sacramentall; whereby the ſignes and the things ſignified wholie remaining, the Sacraments are that truly, which they are ſaid to be.
17 The reſt of the proppes of Tranſubſtantiation, being of the ſame ſtrength with the former, wee reject, as making no account of them, togeather with Conſubſtantiation it ſelfe, adjoyning the ſaying of IRENAEVS, that they who will not know the truth, are forced to allowe of many falſhoods.
Defended by MOSES RICOTERIVS a Gaſcoigne.