Collection of Discourses, Part 10 – Part 11
A BRIEFE EXPLICATION OF the whole controverſie concerning the Lordes ſupper betweene the Conſubſtantials, and the true beleevers.
The chiefe pointes of this explication.
1 What errors the Conſubſtantials impute vntounto vsus.
2 The arguments of the Conſubſtantials againſt our doctrine of the ſupper.
3 The ſhifts of the Conſubſtantials including ſome of our obiections.
4 Arguments againſt the preſence and corporall eating of the body of Chriſt, IN, WITH, and VNDERUNDER bread.
5 The arguments wherby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refelled, and the truth of ſound doctrine confirmed.
The errors which the Conſubſtantials falſly impute vntounto vsus with their refutation.
Ob. IN the doctrine of of the Lordes Supper there are (ſay the Conſubſtantials) two extreams to be avoided: for both every vertue, & every truth ſtandeth betweene two extremes. The one is of the Papiſtes, the other of the Sacramentaries: and on each ſide it ſeemes to be fourfould. The errors of the Papiſtes are. 1 Tranſſubſtantiation. 2 The worſhippe of bread. 3. The ſacrifice of the maſſe. 4. A maiming of the ſacramēt Anſ. They ſet downe indeede the errors of the Papiſtes, but they cannot refute them: becauſe their opinion agreeth more with the opinion of the Papiſts, then ours doth.
For firſt,The Conſubſtantials retaine the errors of the Tranſubſtantials. although they teach not Tranſubſtantiation, yet they teach Conſubſtantiation, whereof there is nothing delivered in the word of God.
2 Whereas they teach the bodilie preſence of Chriſt, it muſt needs be that they alſo worſhip Chriſt in the bread, whom they ſuppoſe to bee bodily preſent in, vnderunder, with, and to the bread; which is a thing no leſſe idolatrous, then if they worſhipped the bread. For whereſoever Chriſt is, whether in a viſible or inviſible manner, there he is to be worſhipped.
3 They eſtabliſh the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, becauſe, as it hath bin already ſaid, whileſt they are bound to worſhip Chriſt in the bread, they are enforced to aske of God forgiuenes of their ſinnes for that Chriſts ſake, whome they beare in their handes; which is nought els but the Popiſh oblation of Chriſt.
4 They of force admit the mangling or abridging one part of the Sacrament. For they reteine the foundation, on which the Papiſtes builde this errour. For wheras they hold a corporal preſence of Chriſt in, with, vnderunder or to the bread, they muſt neceſſarilie either withholde the cuppe from the Communicantes, becauſe, in their doctrine and opinion, the bloud of CHRIST is in his body: or elſe they muſt ſeparate CHRISTES bloud from his body; then which nothing can be more abſurd.
Wee offend not, as they charge vsus, in the defect, but keepe the meane.The true catholique opinion keeping a iuſt meane betweene the … of the … & Conſubſtantials offending in the exceſſe; & the … offending in the defect. For wee teach the spirituall preſence and participation; that is to ſay, that all the faithfull which eate and drinke the breade and wine are truelie made partakers of Chriſt himſelfe, and al his benefites, and ſo made one with him, that they become fleſh of his fleſh, & bone of his bones. But ther, as it hath beene already demonſtrated, offende as doe the Papiſts in the exceſſe.
Yea but, ſay they, theſe are the errours of the Sacramentaries, to ſay that
Obiect. 1. The Sacraments are only bare ſignes and tokens.
Anſ. We teach no ſuch doctrine: but we teach that the Thinges ſignified are exhibited and received togither with the Signes, although not corporallie, yet in ſuch manner as fitteth Sacraments.
Obiect 2. CHRIST is preſent onlie according to his working.
Anſ. Neyther is this our doctrine, but we teach that Chriſt is preſent and vnited vntounto vsus by the holy Ghoſt, howſoever his body be farre remooued and abſent from vsus; in like ſorte as he is wholy cōuerſant with vsus by his miniſtery, although it be otherwiſe in reſpect of his other nature.
Obiect. 3. In the Sacrament is only an imaginarie, figuratiue, and spirituall bodie of CHRIST, not an eſſentiall bodie.
Aunſw. Touching the imaginarie bodie obiected wee neuer made mention thereof, but our whole doctrine is concerning the true fleſh of CHRIST, vvhichwhich is preſente vvith vsus, yea though hee remaine ſtill in heaven. Father we ſay, that we receiue the bread and the body, but both in their proper manner. Ob. 4. The true body of Chriſt which hung on the croſſe, and the true bloud which was ſhed for vsus is diſtributed; but ſpiritually: that, it is receiued of them only which are worthy Cōmunicants; and the vnworthy receiue nothing but the bare ſignes to their iudgement, and condē …ation▪ Anſ. This obiection is indeed the very doctrine we preach, and therfore we grant the whole, as being conſonant and agreeable with the word of God, the nature of the Sacramentes, the Analogie of faith and the communion of the faithfull with Chriſt.
II. The arguments whereby the Conſubſtantials labor to … …hrow our doctrine touching the Lords Supper, togither with their Confutation and Anſweres.
Arg. 1. The words of Chriſts inſtitution are plaine & evident, THIS is my bodie, THIS is my bloud.
Aunſ. The words they cite are ſwords to cut their owne throats. For they ſay that … vnderunder, or with the bread, Chriſts bodie is reallie receiued; whereas Chriſt ſaith, that the bread it ſelfe is his bodie. Therfore they do the Church a double wrong. One, in that they thruſt on her their owne words inſteed of Chriſts. Another, in that they think her ſo blind that ſhee cānot ſee the diverſity of theſe two ſayings. The bread is in the bodie; and, The bread is the body Moreover they make Chriſt a lier. For they deny that the bread is his body, and ſay, that his body is in the bread. Let them looke what anſwere they wil make vntounto Chriſt in the laſt day of iudgment concerning this deſpightfull and reproachfull blaſphemy. The Papiſts themſelues rather reteine Chriſts words then our Conſubſtantials. For they teach that the bread is ſo the body of Chriſt, that for ſooth it is chāged into the body of Chriſt. But theſe men keepe not the word, but follow, as they ſay the ſence and meaning. Wherefore wee muſt ſearch diligētly whether of vsus …s in the truth. Our doctrine ſhall be proved in the end.
Repl. In the ſame place this expoſitiō is added which is given for you, and which is ſhed for you.
Anſ 1. Thu… to argue is to begge that which is in controverſie. For they take this as granted, that the bread to properly tearmed the body, which remaines yet to be proved.
Anſ. 2. We anſwere by retorting the argumēt, thus That which we properlie call the bodie of Chriſt was given for vsus:
But the bread was not giuen for vsus.
Ergo, &c.
Aunſ. 3. As the bread is the bodie broken; ſo the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body:
But the breaking of the bread is improperly and myſticallie the breaking of the bodie of Chriſt. For the breaking of the body is the crucifying ther of.
Th…refore the bread brokē is in a myſtical ſence the bodie broken.
Arg. 2. The ſecond argument is drawne from the author Chriſt himſelfe, which is true.
Anſ. This argument takes that for a groūd which is in controuerſie: for they muſt proue that Chriſt ſaid his body was in, vnderunder, or with the breade. Nay one may ſpeake figuratiuely, & yet plainely to. Replie. 1. He is omnipotent. Ergo he can be everie where, yea even in the bread.
Anſ. 1. Though he could make two contradictories at once true, yet he will not.
2. God cannot do thinges contradictorie, becauſe he is truth. But to will thinges contradictorie is the part of a lier. We do not therfore deny the truth and omnipotencie of God, but their lyes; nay we defēd it, ſaying that God doth what he ſpeaketh. But they oppugne it, by teachinge that in God are contrarie willes.
Repl. 2. Chriſtes bodie hath manie prerogatiues wherby it differeth frō our bodies, as namely, that it was born of a virgin, walked on the ſea, was at one time in the graue, in bell, and in paradiſe, paſſed through dores ſhut.
Aunſ. Theſe examples are partly improper or vnlike, partely falſe. Vnlike
1 Becauſe they may alſo be incident to treatures: as walking on the water to Peter, paſſinge through ſhut doores to ſpirites.
2. Becauſe they imploy a contradiction, for when he is ſaid to bee borne of a virgin, he is not at the ſame time ſaid not to bee borne of a Virgin. But at once to be finite and infinite implieth acontradiction. Falſe
1 For he paſſed not through cloſed doores, wheras they might yeeld and giuegive backe to him.
2 For neyther did he paſſe through the dore of the ſepulcher, wheras that is ſaid to hauehave ben opened by the Angell:
3 For neyther was Chriſtes body at one and the ſame inſtante in manie places,Auguſtine. ad Dardan. epiſt. 57. Read the place. which they ſeeme to hauehave taken from Auguſtin, But he ſaide, that his body was in the graue, his ſoule in hel, his Deity everie where.
Arg. 2. The third argument is taken from the circumſtance of time, thus
No man Speaking ſeriouſly ſpeaketh figuratiuely,
Chriſt appointing his laſt Supper ſpake ſeriouſly:
Ergo he ſpeake was figuratiuelie.
Anſ. 1. I deny the maior: for els it would follow, that no man ſpeaking figuratiuely ſhould ſpeake ſeriouſly, which is moſt falſe. For God in al the ſacraments, though he ſpeake figuratiuelie, yet he ſpeaketh ſeriouſelie, I hauehave earneſtely deſired (ſaith Chriſt) to eate this paſſeover with you. I am the vine, you are the branches. Let this cup paſſe from me. If it be thus in the greene wood, what ſhal become of the … He alleadged the 22 pſ. Al this though he ſpeake figuratiuelie, yet did he alſo ſpeake thē ſeriouſly.
Anſ. 2. To the maior I anſwere, that no man thē vſeth reſting or obſcure ſigures. But this is a plaine figure, becauſe cōmon: & his diſciples ſpeake this to him, where wilt thou that we make ready the paſſeover for thee? It is vſual in al ſacramēts. It is forcible, becauſe it expreſſeth the likelihood between the ſigne and the thinge ſignified, with the certainetie of their coniunction in lawfull vſe.
Anſ. We may thus …. Becauſe Chriſt ſpake ſeriouſly, therefore he vſed a figure, liuely expreſſing the thing.
Repl. Chriſt ſaid; his cup is the new Teſtament. Now
In teſtaments we vſe to ſpe…ke properly.
Chriſt here ordained a Sacrament. Ergo &c.
Anſ. I deny the Maior. & retort it: becauſe whē he would inſtitute the Sacrament, he ſpake figuratiuely, calling his ſupper a teſtament, which is to be vnderſtood figuratiuely.
1 Becauſe otherwiſe there ſhould be two covenants, one proper, the other the Lords ſupper.
2 Becauſe otherwiſe all ſhould bee excluded from the covenāt of God, which could not come to the Lords ſupper, and al that received it ſhould be in the covenant.
2. Repl. IN MY BLOVD. Therfore the reall bloud of Chriſt is in the ſupper & is drūke by our mouth. Aunſ. We anſwere by retortiō, becauſe the new Teſtamēt was made by the bloud of Chriſt that was ſhed vpō the Croſſe, & which i… applied vntounto vsus by faith, not receiued through the mouth. For els they ſhould be excluded which cannot come to this Sacrament.
3. Repl. There is an Emphaſis in this worde Newe. That which in the Olde Teſtament was done figuratiuely, is in the Newe done really.
1. Aunſ. If they adde, Chriſt body is eaten therfore with the boddy mouth there is more in their concluſion, then is conteined in their Propoſition becauſe there was no figure in the old Teſtament, which ſignified the bodily eating of Chriſt.
2. Aunſ. We anſwere againe▪ thus by retortion,
The body of Chriſt is eaten no otherwiſe in the new Teſtament then in the Olde.
But in the Olde it was eaten only ſpiritually.
Therefore it is ſo eaten alſo in the Newe.
Repl. 3. The New teſtamēt differeth from the Olde; becauſe in the Olde there are types and figures, but in the Newe the body it ſelfe. Heb. 9. Cor. 2.
Anſ. 1. This difference of the Olde and New Teſtament, That in the Olde Chriſt is not eaten bodily, in the Newe he is, no where expreſſed in the Scripture. In theſe ſayings of the Apoſtle which they cite, A body ſignifieth that the ſhadowes of the Olde Teſtament are fulfilled by Chriſt; becauſe A body is there oppoſed to thoſe ſhadowes. Againe becauſe he calleth it The body of Chriſt, which phraſe ſheweth that theſe types are fulfiled by Chriſt.
Anſ. 2. Againe we anſwere by conceſſion or graūt of as much as they conclude▪ Although we hauehave Chriſt exhibited in the Newe Teſtament, and he be borne man; yet hence it therefore followeth not that his body is in the bread, but only that it is in the Newe Teſtament.
Arg. 4. From the conſent of the Evangeliſts, end of Paule. Matthew (as Theophilact counteth) wrote his … the 8.) …are after the aſcenſion: Marke in the 10 Luke the 15. Paule the 20. & they al vſe the ſan'… wordes.
A speech often vttered in the ſame words is not figuratiue:
Such an one is that ſpeech of the Lords Supper,
Therefore it is not figuratiue.
Anſ. 1. We deny the Maior, becauſe when any figure is cleere, manifeſt, & Emphatical, as this is, it is reteined.
Anſ. 2. The Evāgeliſts do allſo repeat the words of Chriſt, which he ſpake figuratiuely. That ſame though figuratiue is often repeated, Thou ſhalt baptiſe with the holy Ghoſt, & with fire. Ioh. 1. Mat. 3.
Anſ. 3. Beſides it is a fallacy from mis;taking of the Cauſe; becauſe a ſpeech is not therefore repeated becauſe it is figuratiue or proper, but that it may be the better rooted in the heartes.
Anſ 4. Againe we deny the Mainor, 1. Becauſe Mathewe & Marke ſay This is the bloud of the New Teſtament▪ Luke ſaith, This cuppe is the Newe Teſtament in my bloud. 2. Mathewe & Marke, ſay This is my body: Luke & Paule adde, which is deliuered for you. 3. Luke ſaith, which is deliuered for you: Paule, which is broken for you. 4. Paule ſaith, The bread is the communion of the body of Chriſt. For although in this place he treateth not of purpoſe of the Supper, yet he exhorteth thervnto.
Repl. 1. The meaning notwithſtāding is one & the ſā … ▪
Anſ. Wee ſeeke not now after the meaning… of the wordes, but whether the wordes are the very ſelfe ſame.
Repl. 2. Ther is … mētion at all made of any figure. Where there is no mention made of any figure, there is no figure.
Heere there is no mention made of any figure.
Therfore here is no figure.
Anſ. 1. We deny the Maior, becauſe that were fonde, and men ſhould ſeeme to boaſt of their ſkill, if they ſhould ſay they had vſed ſome excellent figure. The ſcripture alſo ſpeaketh often figuratiuely; and yet it addeth not that it ſpake figuratiuely.
Aunſ. 2. Wee deny the Maior, becauſe they make mention of a figure, whileſt they expounde it; which is manifeſt by the nature of the Subiect & Predicat. The bodie was borne of the virgin, was crucified, &c. Breade is made of meale.
Aunſ. 3. He commaundeth that this ſhould be done in remembrance of him; therefore the bread is termed his body as a memoriall.
Aunſ. 4. Mathewe & Marke ſay, This is the bloud of the New Teſtament: Paule and Luke, This is the Newe Teſtament in my bloud, Nowe the Newe Teſtament is an obligation of God, for the receiving into favour of ſuch as beleeue, and repent: & of them, for the exhibiting of faith, and obedience vntounto him.
Aunſ. 5. Paule ſaith that, The bread is the communion of the body of Chriſt, which is no bodily eating. 1. The faithful are therby one body in Chriſt. 2. He compares it with the cōmuniō of the altar in the olde Teſtamēt, which was not corporall. 3. It can be attributed to the faithfull alone, & not to the vngodly.
4 Iohn expoundeth this communion by remiſſiō of ſinnes. If we walke in the light, we hauehave fellowſhipe with him, and the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of God cle…eth us from all ſinne.
Repl. 3. Nay Paule vſeth three wordes which are three demonſtrations.
1. COMMVNION.
Anſ. But this Communiō is an vnion with Chriſt, and an enioying of all his benefites by faith. To this belongeth the ſimilitude of the Body and the Members; of the Vine, & the Branches; which hath no reference to any corporall eating. This communion both was & is common to all the godly from the beginning of the world, to the end therof. But they could not eate it bodily: That wee may growe in him, of whome the whole body is coupled. He that cleaueth to the Lord, is one spirit with him. And wee are all baptiſed by one Spirit into one bodie. But this wee knowe that wee dwell in him and he in vsus, in that he hath given vsus of his Spirite. This vnion then is that communion which is by the holy Ghoſt, and therefore ſpirituall. For breade cānot be this communion but only by a figuratiue ſpeech called Metonymie.
2 GVILTY OF THE BODY.
He that is guiltie of the body of Chriſt eateth it.
They that receiue veworthily are guiltie of the body of Chriſt.
Therefore they eate it corporally. For spiritually they can not: for if they ſhould ſo care, they were not guiltie.
Anſ. I doe deny the Maior. For he is guilty of the bodie of Chriſt who by his ſins crucifieth it, and deſpiſeth the benefite of Chriſt. Now vntounto this gu…lte there is no neede of anie bodily eating; but not to receiue Chriſt by faith when he is offered vntounto vsus. So the iniurie offered vntounto the Arke is ſaid to be offered vntounto the Lord.
3 Nor diſcerning the bodie of the Lord.
They that diſcerne not the bodie of the Lorde eat it▪
The guiltie diſcerne it not:
Therefore they eate it.
Anſ. We grant if the Maior be taken ſacramē tally, viz. of that bread which is named Chriſts bodie, it is true: if properly, it is falſe. For not to diſcern… is not to yeeld honor therevnto due, to contemne him, and not to receiueth thing ſignified. So Heb. 10. ver. 29 they are ſaid to treade vnderunder feete the Son of God, and to account the bloud of the covenant an vnholy thing, which contemne him.
Arg. 5. Drawne from the teſtimonies of the Fathers and godlie antiquitie in the vncorrupt Church.
Anſ. The ſayings of the Fathers are to be taken Sacrament allie, or of the ſpirituall Communion. They ſaie often that the bodie and bloud of our Lord is giuen vntounto vsus with the bread & wine. If thē they allowe of Corporall preſence they allowe alſo of the Papiſtes Concomitancie, or the ſeparation of the blouds from the bodie.
1. Auguſtine ſaith: Thou receiueſt that in the bread, which hange on the Croſſe; that in the cuppe, which wa… ſhed from Chriſt his ſide.
Anſ. In the bread as in a ſigne, that is, togither with the Signe thou receiveſt the thing ſignified. Whē we receiue the bread we are ſure that we hauehave Chriſt.
2 Cyrillon Iohn ſaith: By a naturall participatiō, … ſpiritually, but alſo corporally: not only according to the ſpirite, but alſo according to the fleſh: corporally, and eſſentiallie.
Aunſ. Cyrill ſpeaketh not of the manner of eating, but of the thing eaten: he ſheweth that we are made partakers not only of the ſpirit, but alſo of the humane nature of Chriſt. Now he meaneth the ſpirituall communion.
1 VponUpon it he citeth the places of Ioh 6. 54. & 1. Cor. 6. 15. where there is no mention made of any corporall eating.
2 He ſpeaketh of the preſence of Chriſt not in the bread, but in vsus.
3 He proveth this abiding of Chriſt by the vſe of the ſupper, not by the corporall eating of it.
4 He ſo deſcribeth it, as that he faith it ſhall endure in the life eternall.
5 He ſpeaketh of that Cōmunion which is proper to the Saints; now that is ſpirituall. For elſe it ſhould alſo happen to the wicked.
III. The Shiftes of th… Conſubſtantials in eluding ſome (not al, for there are more obiected againſt th…) of …ur obiections.
1 We doe not meane (ſay they) a naturall and … eating.
Anſ. We obiect not this againſt them, but only we aske, whether Chriſt be eatē bodilie, either after a groſſe or ſub…e manner. How ſo ever they anſwere, there is too much idolatrie in their opinion. For Chriſt refuting the Capernaites diſtinguiſheth not the eating of himſelfe into a groſſe & ſubtile manner, but he ſimply ſaith that his body cannot be taken with a bodily mouth. For hee ſaith that he ſhall aſcend, and that the words which he ſpeaketh are ſpirit and life.
Ob. 2. We mainetaine not the vbiquitie. For thereof is not one word mentioned.
Anſ. Here is to be noted the diſagreement of ou… adverſaries about Vbiquitie. Neither is there one word mentioned to this purpoſe, that the body of Chriſt is at once in many places. For it is a properly belonging only to his divine nature, to be … once in many places. Moreouer vponupon this opiniō of theirs followeth the Vbiquitie, for hee which at once is all in divers places, muſt needs be infinite, & therefore neceſſarilie everie where.
Ob 3. We doe not deſtroy the article of Chriſts aſcenſion.
Aunſw. But they ſtumble at it. For whileſt they avouch, that as often as the Lordes Supper is celebrated. CHRIST is eaten corporally, they muſt needes ſay that hee remayneth inviſibly vponupon earth, (whereas indeede hee is ſaide to hauehave left the worlde, to hauehave aſcended from▪ an inferior to a ſuperiour place, there to remaine in heaven vntill he come to iudgment.) or that he deſcendeth from heauen, as often as the Lordes ſupper is celebrated. This is allready refuted. How then is he in the breade?
Obiect 4. Wee take not awaie the doctrine of the proprieties of his humane nature.
Anſ. Yes quite awaie. For they will hauehave his humane nature to be ſuch, as is neither ſeene, felt, nor circumſcribed.
Repl. But Chriſt layde a ſide theſe infirmities, and reſerued his naturall proprieties.
Anſ. Nay theſe are his naturall proprieties, which being taken awaie the truth of his humane nature is alſo taken awaye. Auguſtine: take away the ſpace & dimenſion of bodies, and they wil be no where.
Obiect. 5. We do not aboliſh the doctrine of communicating proprieties.
Aunſw. Yes they doe. For they applie the properties of the divine nature (which are attributed to the whole perſon in cōcrete) vntounto both natures: I will be with you vntounto the end of the worlde: this they take as ſpokē of both natures. Which is as much as if ſaying Chriſt was circūciſed, I ſhould thus vnderſtand it, Chriſt was circumciſed both in his godhead, and alſo in the fleſh.
Repli. This onelie wee adde, that thoſe articles concerne not this place.
Anſ. By this reaſon all ſectes might ſhift of all teſtimonies of ſcripture. But by their leaue they concerne this place for two reaſons.
1 Becauſe.
They are wrighten of the body of Chriſt.
But the body of Chriſt concerneth the Lordes ſupper:
Ergo theſe articles alſo concerne this place.
For they teach vsus how Chriſtes body is to be eaten.
2. Becauſe no one article of faith is contrarie to an other, but everie one is a rule by which we muſt interpret an other: ſo the doctrine of iuſtification pertaineth to this, becauſe in the Lords Supper muſt no other righteouſeneſſe be ſought, then by the bloud of Chriſt.
Obiect. Wee muſt not ſette downe the manner howe.
Anſ. Here is a double errour. 1. When they ſay we muſt not define or ſet downe the manner, and ſo they contradict ſcripture, which defineth it, & teacheth vsus that it is ſpirituall, & that the vnion with Chriſt is made in faith by the holy Ghoſt. 2. Themſelues ſet downe the manner, as appeareth manyfeſtely by their wrightings.
Obiect. 7. It is trewe that Durandus ſayth: Wee heare the wordes, perceaue the motion, beleeue the preſence, and knowe not the manner.
Anſ 2. This neither helpeth you, nor hurteth vsus, becauſe Durandus was a Papiſt.
Aunſw. Wee may graunt this ſaying, ſo it bee rightly vnderſtoode. VVee heare the worde this is my bodie, not that in the breade wee doe with our mouthes feede on the bodie of Chriſt. We perceiue the motion, that is, that the breade entereth into our mouth, not the body of Chriſt We know not the manner, that is perfectly, namely how the holy Ghoſt is everie where all in Chriſt, and in all the god he, and how he doth vnite vsus in Chriſt. We beleeue the preſence, but ſuch a preſence as is the eating▪ and as is the vnion of the members and the head.
Ob. 8. This …, that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt is given vntounto …, cruelie, ſubſtantiallie, and ….
Anſ. We grant that wee eate the true bodie of … then the whole diſputation is to no purpoſe. 1 Becauſe they coufeſſe that we are made partakers of the true bodie of Chriſt, and that we … of the manner▪ which alſo we grant. 2 Becauſe the reaſons o… refutations which they bring are or no moment.
4 ARGVMENTS, WHEREBY IT IS proved, that the bodie of Chriſt is preſent neither IN nor VNDERUNDER, nor TO the bread of the Lords ſupper, nor is corporally eaten IN it, VNDERUNDER it, WITH it, &c.
1. BEcauſe he tooke on him very nature of mā. Beſides, we cannot eate him otherwiſe then did his diſciples in the firſt ſupper.
2 Hee did truely aſcende from earth into heaven.
3 Such is the eating of him, as is his aboad with vsus,
4 Al the godlie of the Old and new Teſtament hauehave the ſame aboad with Chriſt.
5 Chriſt alone can offer himſelfe to his Father. Nowe in the vſe of the Lordes ſupper wee muſt needs craue of God remiſſion of ſins. If therefore he be preſent with the bread, wee muſt deſire this of him, & ſo we offer bread. In the new teſtamēt it is not lawful to direct our praiers to any one certaine place.
6 Thoſe good gifts which are promiſed only to the godly, are ſpiritual. To theſe and others aboue cited, may be added the conſent of Fathers, as Ambroſe, Athanaſius, Auguſtine, Baſill, Ba…e, Bertra…s, Chryſoſtome, Clemens Alexandr…, the Nicene Counſell, Cyprian, Cyrill, Dionyſius, Gelaſius▪ Gregorie the Greate, Gregorie Naz…zen, He ſ…chius, Hierom, Hilarie, Irenaeus, Iuſtin, Leo, Macarius, Orig…n, Procoplus, Gaza, Tertullian, Theodoret, &c?
5. Arguments whereby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refe…ed, and the truth of the right doctrine confirmed.
Arg. The Marcion…es and Manichees fained that Chriſt had no true & ſolid humane bodie, but onlie an imaginarie or ſeeming bodie, ſo that he did only ſeeme to hauehave fleſh & bones, whereas indeed he had none. And that the verie incarnation, and al motions and operations of Chriſt did only appeare in ſhew, wheras indeed there was no ſuch thing.
But this opinion of Vbiquitie, and real communication of proprieties, revoketh from hell that phantaſtique dotage of Marcion and Manes.
Wherefore this alſo, as the Man…chea… hereſie, is to be condemned & baniſhed from Gods Church, vntounto the very deepeſt pit of hell.
The Minor is thus proued, The Vbiquitaries beleeue and teach, that all properties of the Deity were at the inſtant of conception, really tranſfuſed from the Deity of the Worde, into the humane nature aſſumed by Chriſt. Hence follow theſe abſurdities.
1 Chriſt ſhall not be truelie borne of the Virgin, if according to the nature of his humanity, hee were truely & eſſentiallie without his mothers wombe before he were borne, and after his birth were according to his humane nature as truely and ſubſtantiallie in his mothers wombe as before.
2 In his humane nature Chriſt was not truly weak and ſubiect to paſſions, if then alſo he were partaker of divine maieſtie and omnipotencie.
3 He was not truely dead, if in the verie inſtant of death both in ſoule and bodie he were eſſentially everie where preſent with his Deity. For his ſoule everie-where-preſent with his everie-where-preſent bodie could not reallie bee ſeparated by diſtance of place, and therefore his body could not die but imaginarily.
4 He did not truelie aſcend into heavē, but we muſt ſay it was onlie an imaginarie and phantaſtique ſhew, if in bodie he were there ſubſtātially before he aſcended thither, & after he aſcended, nevertheles he remaine in the earth, nay in the very bodies of the faithfull, by ſubſtantiall preſence of the ſame bodie, as truely as before, if theſe things did indeed ſo fall out, it will follow that the ſame bodie of Chriſt was at once weake and yet omnipotent, baſe and glorious, able to ſuffer and vnable, dead and living, limited and vnlimited, which to ſaie were blaſphemie.
To avoide theſe prodigious and impious abſurdities, they tell vsus, that
Ob. Chriſt in reſpect of his bodie was in deed limited, weake, paſſible, & mortall in the time of his humiliation: becauſe he did empty himſelfe, & would not before his reſurrection ſhew forth that maieſtie which hee imparted to his bodie.
Anſ. They doe ill to interpret this emptying of concealing all his glorie and maieſtie for the time wherein he tooke our nature vponupon him: whereas indeed it is to be vnderſtood of the divine nature of the worde, as it vouchſafed to take vponupon it the ſhape of a ſervant, that is, the Maſſe of our nature, and would become man. Beſides, it would followe that Chriſt did even then ſhew forth the power & maieſtie communicated to his fleſh, when he was truely ſubiect to infirmitie, and circumſcribed by his body: as which weeping he raized Lazarus, and beeing taken by the Iewes, healed Malchus which was wounded by Peter. But what is it to fetch backe the Marcionites from hell, or in the greateſt myſtery of religion to ſpeak blaſphemie, if this be not?
Argum. 2 This is the blaſphemie of Samoſ…te…, Airtus, and the late Antitrinitaries▪ that the man Chriſt is not properlie and naturally God, but only by accidentall participation of the Divine proprieties, maieſtie, honor, power, and vertue. In like manner conceaue the Vbiquitaries of the deitie of the man Ch…iſt, de…ining the perſonal vnion, by this only cōmunicating of proprieties, wherby the fleſh of Chriſt is made omnipotent & preſent in every place. So that the ſame man is, and is called God, not becauſe properly and naturally he is ſo, but becauſe from God there is giuen vntounto him infinite power, maieſtie, glorie, and all giftes of the holy Goſt without meaſure. But this accidentall beſtowing of the deitie and all properties therof, did not make Chriſt properly and naturally God▪ but onelyonly by divine grace, or God improperly ſo called; becauſe he is not the naturall deitie of the worde, but a certaine participation thereof with force and efficacie. But therfore was it obiected by trew Chriſtians againſt the Arrians that they ouerthrew the trew and eternall Deitie of Chriſt, becauſe they did not accoumpt him God by nature but onelyonly by participation of dignitie and maieſtie through grace. Seeing therefore the Vbiquitaries only of equaling our Immanuel to God by participation of proprieties, do take awaie his trewand eternall deity, we do with good reaſon condemne and deteſt this doctrine of theirs as blaſphemo…ie and hereticall. This their owne wordes and ſentences do witneſſe, as Brentius in Recognie. Pag 20. Iacob. Andr. Theſ. 20. disputation. Tunigeus. Item. Theſ. 25 & 26. Et Apolog. Ingolſtad. 26. Where it is gathered, that the opinion of the Vbiquitaries of the deitie of the man Chriſt, is all one with that of the Arrians and Antitrinitaries, that is, that by all theſe he is accoūpted not God by nature, but onelyonly by grace of participation, a new, temporarie, created, and adoptiue God. Which if it be trew, Chriſt ſhall not be foreign, God & mā, but foreign, a Divine man; ſuch as alſo he is accoūted by the Vbiquitaries, who (at witneſſeth Seruetus in his firſt booke De Trimitate) ſay that God may cōmunicate vntounto man the fulneſſe of his Deitie, & giuegive vntounto him his Diuinitie, maieſtie, power, and glorie. Which blaſphemie, being the ſame both, we vtterly hate and deteſt. Argum. 3. N…ſtorius taught that God (which is the word) vvas vnited vntounto man onlie by participation of equalitie in maieſtie, honour, power, vertue, and operation. And that the difference of the wordes dwelling in man aſſumed by it, and in other ſaintes, conſiſteth in nothing but in the verie gifts and graces beſtowed on man by God. This alſo the Vbiquitaries teach; becauſe they ſay there is no differēce betweene the dwelling of the Deitie in Peter and Chriſt, except ſuch as is taken from communicating the giftes and properties of the Deitie: maintaining that in this reſpect the manhoode aſ…umed by Chriſt is God, becauſe the Worde doth nothing without it, but al things by it. And this is nothing els but to make the mā Chriſt to be God onlie by accident. Wherfore the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is al one with that of the Neſtorians.
Tertullianus. … ▪ de Trin. pag. 610. If Chriſt be o…lie …an, howe is hee preſent whereſoever hee is called vponupon? whereas to be preſent everie where, is not the nature of man but of God? By this ſentence is… felled the Vbiquitie of the humane nature in Chriſt.
Obie▪ But the vnion of the divine and humane nature in Chriſt is inſeparable:
Therefore whereſoever his divine nature is, there alſo is his humane nature.
Anſ. It is true that the vnion is inſeparable, for the worde neuer forſaketh the nature once aſſumed. But the vvord is not ſo in the humane nature as a ſoule encloaſed in our bodies. For whereſoever are our bodies, there alſo needes muſt be our ſoules, and the ſoule once without the bodie, is not preſent with it. But the word is not ſo in the man Chriſt, but is ſo inſeperably and perſonally in the humane nature, that withall it is without the humane nature in all partes of the worlde by …e…letion or filling everie place, and in the godlie and Angels by ſpeciall preſence. For the perſonal vnion of two natures overthroweth not the generall action of the preſence of his maieſtie; nor hindereth the ſpeciall action: becauſe the word is effectuall in the faithfull and regene…ate.