Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Section 14
Maiſter Gilbert Browne.
Now let not the Miniſters come in here with their naturall reaſones againſt the omnipotencie of Chriſt that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figures, ſignes, ſimilitudes, ſymboles and ſpirituall eating of an naturall bodie, with many the like: whilks are the inuenti…ns of their owne braynes, Read the notes of the Scottiſh Bible in theſe places.not contayned in the written worde. And who can ſaie but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and not theirs.
Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.
Ye prevent our anſwers heere, and firſt ye bid vsus hold away our naturall reaſons againſt the omnipotency of Chriſt, that he cannot be in two places at once. Whereunto I anſwere: that we ſhall bring no reaſon, neither naturall nor ſupernaturall, againſt the omnipotency of Chriſt for we acknowledg it, & adores it. But we ſay to you pretend not his omnipotencie for your monſtrous imaginations, whilk hes no warrand of his will in his Scripture. For firſt we ſay, this argument of yours will not follow: Chriſt is able to make his bodie to be in two places, both at once, in heauen, and in the Sacrament: therefore he makes it to be ſo. For you muſt firſt proue he wil doe ſo: for your ſelf, Maiſter Gilbert, can do many things quhilk you doe not, becauſe you will not, ſo from can to wil, it followes not. And if you ſay that Chriſt hes willed ſo, becauſe he ſaide, This is my bodie: I hauehave anſwered to it before, refute you it, and all your Romane Cleargie if you can. For you might aſwell ſay, Chriſt willed the Cup wherin the wine was, to be changed in his blood and newe Teſtament, and himſelf to be changed in a wine Tree, Ioh 10. & 15 1. Cor, 10. Luc … 1. Cor. 11and a Dore and a Rock to be changed in him: becauſe ſo hes he and his Apoſtles ſpoken, and theſe ſpeaches are as true, as that; and yet there is no change heir. Next, I ſay, your owne ſchoolemen and great defenders of Tranſubſtantiation, Lib. 1. cap. 84. & lib. 2. cap. 25. con…agentThomas of Aquine and others, ſayes that it is againſt the omnipotencie of God, to affirme that hee may doe anything whilk implyes a contradiction in the ſelfe, for that is rather to be called a weakneſſe nor a power. And the Scripture affirmes, that God cannot lye, nor deny himſelf, nor be tempted, and that yea and nay is not in Chriſt: Heb. 6.2 Tim. 2. Iames 1.2, Cor. …but to Chriſts bodie both to be a true bodie like to vsus in all things (to wit eſſential) except ſinne, as the Scripture ſayes, and to be in moe places at once, whilk makes him to hauehave not a true bodie like ours. For Auguſtine ſayes, (ſpeaking of Chriſts glorified body,) If it be a true bodie, it is then in a certaine place: Auguſt. ad Da… danumand take away from bodies their quantities, they are no more true bodies) implyes a contradiction, and is yea and nay in him: and Chriſts body both to be viſible and inuiſible at one time: to bee in a certaine place in heauen with his owne length and bredth, & not to hauehave his owne length and bredth at once in the Sacrament, is a manifeſt contradiction, is yea and nay in Chriſt: therfore both by the Scripture and your owne doctrine, the omnipotencie of Chriſt: cannot be alleadged or pretended for this your doctrine, whilk is yea and nay, and implyes a manifeſt contradiction. So this in very trueth, M. Gilbert is the inuention of your owne braine, whilk is alledged for your Tranſubſtantiation, and wants the warrand, yea is gainſaide both by the written word, and your owne ſchoole-men. Next, yee would hauehave vsus to hold away our figures ſymboles, and ſimilitudes: I anſwere: our owne figures we ſhall holde away: but theſe figures, ſymboles, and ſignes, wherein our Sauiour hes deliuered his trueth to vsus, we muſt and will acknowledg So then, obeying rather God who hes ſet them downe in his Scripture, nor you who forbids vsus to acknowledge them: & what a monſtrous expoſition woulde you make of infinite places of Scripture, if you woulde admit no figures in them, but all to be vnderſtood plainlie and literallie as they were ſpoken. The Scripture aſcriues to God eies, eares, ſeit, hands, & a face: and the Scripture calles Chriſt a dore, a vine. Nowe if you will admit no figures heir, but will hauehave all theſe places exponed literallie, as you will hauehave vsus to doe in the Sacrament: then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae, who becauſe they ſaw the Scripture ſpeake ſo of God, they taking it literally and exponing it without figures, as you would hauehave vsus to expone the Sacrament, they thought that God was bodilie: yea, you muſt make another monſtrous Tranſubſtantiation of Chriſt in a dore, and vine tree, for ſo he calles himſelf. And to come to the Sacraments themſelues, how many Tranſubſtantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the old & new Teſtament, if you will remoue figures and ſignes from them, and expone them literally, as you would hauehave vsus to do in this Sacrament, Circumciſion is called the couenant, and yet it was but the ſigne of the covenant: Gen. 27. Exod. 12 2. Cor. 1… Pſa. 24 Heb 4. Tit 3the Lamb in the Paſſeouer, is called the Paſſeouer of the Lord, & yet it was but the ſigne of the Paſſeouer: the rock in the wilderneſſe is called Chriſt, and yet it was but a ſigne of Chriſt: the Arke is called the Lord, and yet it was but a ſigne of the Lord: the land of Canaan is called the reſt of the Lord, and yet it was but a ſigne of that reſt: and Baptiſme is called the lawer of regeneratiō, and yet it is but the ſigne of our regeneration. Doe you thinke that the formes of ſpeaches in all other Sacramentes are figuratiuely taken and the forme of ſpeach in this Sacrament only to be literallie vnderſtood? what reaſon can there be of this diuerſitie? But it may be you think that the forme of ſpeeches in all other Sacraments ſhould be taken figuratiuely: but the phraſe of ſpeach in this Sacrament is to be taken literallie. But firſt, what then will you ſay to this ſpeach This is my body whilk is broken for you, and this, 1. Cor, 11. Luc. 22 Mar. 14.1. Cor, 13the Cup is the newe Teſtament in my blood, and the Cup is my blood, and the bread whilke we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt, and the Cup whilk we bliſſe, is it not the communion of the blood of Chriſt? al figuratiue ſpeaches, and to be vnderſtood figuratiuelie: otherwiſe Chriſt ſhuld hauehave bene broken in the Sacrament, whilk is both contrary to the Scripture, and alſo abſurde. For then he ſhould hauehave ſuffered twiſe, once in the ſacrament, & once vponupon the Croce: and not only ſhould there be one Tranſubſtantiation in the Sacrament, but manie: as of the cup in the blood of Chriſt: and of the bread and cup in the participatiō of the body and blood of Chriſt: and ſo you ſhould not only hauehave one Tranſubſtantiation, but manie. And howe I pray you can Sacramēts whilk are but figures, ſignes & ſymboles, be vnderſtood but figuratiulie? And how can duo diuerſa indiuidua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione, and be ſpoken of another, vvithout a figure, as it is heere. This bread is my bodie, &c. Can you or any at all of your Romane Cleargie, vnderſtand ſik propoſitions othervvaies then figuratiuelie? What an vnreaſonable thing is it then to you to forbid vsus to acknowledge figures in this ſacrament, whilk is but a figure and ſigne, ſeing they are ſo frequently vſed in the ſcriptures of God, and eſpecially in ſacraments, as alſo in this ſacrament? So nil ye, wil ye ſignes & ſymboles, tropes, and figures yee muſt admit in the expoſition of this ſacrament. Laſt of all ye thinke, a naturall bodie cannot be ſpirituallie eaten. Would you be ſo abſurd and blaſphemous as to hauehave Chriſts bodie naturally eaten? For then his bodie muſt be naturally chawed, A page hauehave blaſphemiamdigeſted, turned ouer in our ſubſtance, & caſten out in the draught, and ſo be mortall and ſuffer againe. Let me ask you whether is Chriſts bodie the foode of the ſoule, or the foode of the bodie? If you ſay it is the foode of the bodie to fill the bellie, then I ſay it muſt be naturally eaten, but you are blaſphemous in ſo thinking. But if you ſay it is the foode of the ſoule, as it is indeede, and as our Sauiour ſayes, then it cannot bee eaten naturally: for as the foode of the bodie cannot be eaten ſpiritually, Ioh. 6.35.ſo the foode of the ſoule cānot be eaten naturally, but ſpiritually by faith. And if you vnderſtood this true eating of Chriſt by faith, all your contention woulde take an end. But this is the ſtone whilk yee ſtumble at, and therefore yee forbid vsus to come in with a ſpirituall eating of Chriſts naturall bodie, as though it could be eaten otherwiſe nor ſpiritually by faith. Will you neither vnderſtand the Scriptures nor the ancient fathers, Ioh 6.35. Auguſt tract. 26. in Ioh 6 & lib 3 de doctr. Chriſt cap 16. & Clemens Alex. Hieronim s. Baſilus B…rnardus ſupra citat. lit Be…larm. de Euchariſt lib, 1. ca, 7 and your can…n law de conſecr. di…t. 1, cap. V, Quid pa as dentes, B…leue and …ou hes eaten Eph… ſ. … I…hn. 16nor your owne Kirk, who all acknowledge a ſpirituall eating of Chriſt by faith? What groſſe darknes is this, wherewith the Lord hes blinded you aboue all, that ye cannot vnderſtand it? As Chriſt dwels in vsus and we in him, ſo doe we eate him & drink him. But the Apoſtle ſayes, he dwels in vsus by faith therefore we eate him and drinke him by faith. And ſeeing your Kirk grants that the eating of Chriſt corporally does no good, and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternall life, as our Sauiour ſayes: what needs then this corporall and reall eating of Chriſt? And why are yee like the groſſe and carnall Caperna…ts who can vnderſtand no eating but a corporall eating of him? And what is the cauſe that ye cannot vnderſtand the doctrine of your owne Kirk whilk acknowledges a ſpirituall eating of Chirſt by faith both by the worde and by the ſacrament alſo. De conſecra. liſt a cap. Vt quidI had neuer hauehave thought that ye had bene ſo far blinded of the Lorde. But I hauehave you to the Lord. Let the (Chriſtian reader) now iudge whether our doctrine or yours bee the inuention of mans braine, and whilk of them hes their warrant out of the written word of God.