The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 3
Proofes thereof by the circumstances of the action.
Sect. 26 All the circumstances of the action speake for, and fight with vsus against transsubstantiation. For, as Iesus Christ made no lifting vp of the hoast, so he did not command the Apostles to worship that which he held in his hands; and it is certaine that they sate at the Table, which is an vnfit action for those that adore. For if at this day any one should do as the Apostles then did, he should be held among them to be a prophane fellow, and a contemner of God. It is to no purpose to say, that the Apostles had Iesus Christ daily with them: for they did neuer eate him, nor swallowed him downe into their stomacks, nor euer were present at such a sacrifice. And such an adoration had bene necessarie in the first institution of that Sacrament, and in an action which was to serue for a patterne and president in time to come.
2 The time also when the Lord celebrated that action, is very necessarie to be considered. For then his body was weake and passible, but the body which they will hauehave Iesus Christ to hauehave giuen to his Disciples, was impassible, and could not be broken, as being whole in eueryevery crumme, and spirituall and indiuisible. There shall neuer any example be found, wherein a body is weake, and passible in one place, and elsewhere impassible and without infirmitie. Contrarie things may agree in one selfe same subiect at seuerall times, or in seuerall parts of the subiect, or in diuers respects, that is, being compared to diuers things: As for example a man may be white to day, and the next day blacke; he may be white in one part of his body, and blacke in another; he may be rich in comparison to one that is poorer, and poore in comparison to one that is richer. But that at one selfe same time, a man being whole, and not compared to another, can be white and blacke, or poore and rich, it is impossible. This is it which they do to the body of Christ, when they make it to be whole, and at the same time, without comparing it to another body, make it mortall and immortall, passible and impassible, weake and without infirmitie, visible and inuisible, speaking, and mouing it selfe at the Table, and not speaking nor being able to moue vnderunder the species of bread. Thus you hauehave two contrary Iesus Christs, and one of them more perfect then the other: for, to be impassible, is a perfection, and to be passible is an imperfection.
3 They agree with vsus, that Iesus Christ in the Eucharist did eate and drinke with his disciples; then it followeth, (according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome) that Iesus Christ did eate himselfe, and that he swallowed his whole body downe into his stomacke. And seeing that naturally Iesus Christs mouth stood in his head, by this doctrine we must say, that at one selfe same time he had his mouth in his head, and his head in his mouth. And yet he did not eate himselfe as he was, for when Iesus Christ did eate, he was weake, and Iesus Christ eaten by Iesus Christ was without infirmitie. Which being a greater miracle then the conception and the resurrection of Iesus Christ, yet they can produce no fruite thereby, nor shew vsus how that can profit vsus touching our redemption. And if Iesus Christ did that to serue for an example to the Priest, then it followeth that the Priest should eate himselfe in the Masse. And it is hard to say, what the body of Iesus Christ did in the body of Iesus Christ, and what efficacie it had therein. And seeing that they say, that the soule is within the host, to what end should Christs soule enter into Christ, seeing it was there already? Do our aduersaries thinke to be beleeued in all these things? Is not this the way to paint the house of God with Chimaeraes, and to expose religion to open obloquy?
4 It is also to be noted; that our aduersaries hold, with S. Augustine and Saint Hierome, that Iudas receiued the Eucharist with the rest of the Apostles. And indeed Saint Luke after the administration of the Sacrament, witnesseth that Iesus Christ said, Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the table. But it is manifest, that the body of Iesus Christ did not enter into Iudas: for the Gospell witnesseth that Iudas being at the table, the diuell entred into him. Iesus Christ and the diuell could not well hauehave lodged both in one place: for then the diuell preuailed in Iudas, and so it must follow, that the diuell got the vpper hand of Iesus Christ. But Iesus Christ dwelleth not in any man, without producing the effects of saluation in him. Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall, Iohn 6.54.
5 It is a notable circumstance to be considered, that Iesus Christ celebrating the Eucharist was troubled, as now entring into his passion; and when he arose from the table, he said that his soule was very heauy, euen vntounto the death, and swet drops of bloud for griefe. And yet at one selfe same time our aduersaries make one Iesus Christ to be in the mouthes and stomackes of the Apostles, which being impassible, suffered no paine nor griefe, neither sweat drops of bloud; which not onelyonly makes two contrary Iesus Christs at one time, but also one Iesus Christ which is not our Sauiour, seeing he is exempted from passions.
6 Lastly, it is to be thought, that the bread being broken in so many peeces among the Apostles, some crums or small peeces thereof did fall downe, and that there was some of it left; yet Iesus Christ did not command them to take them vp, nor to reserue the rest, which he would hauehave done, if eueryevery crum & peece thereof had bene Iesus Christs body fully and wholly.
7 But say that there was no bread remaining, yet the Apostles in the meane time that Iesus Christ was vponupon the crosse, or in the sepulcher, might among themselues celebrate the Sacrament: and so there should be one Iesus Christ vponupon the crosse, with his hands and feete pierced with nayles and tormented, and another not on the crosse, that had not his hands and his feete pierced, neither suffered any torment. And if in the host Iesus Christ is also crucified and whipt, then they must put the crosse, and the executioners, and the whips into the host, or else they must say that he was crucified vnderunder the host without the crosse, and whipped without whips, which are apparent contradictions.