A golden chaine: or The description of theologie containing the order of the causes of saluation and damnation, according to Gods word. A view whereof is to be seene in the table annexed. Hereunto is adioyned the order which M. Theodore Beza vsed in comforting afflicted consciences.

Our reasons.

I. This corporall presence ouerturnes sundrie articles of faith. For we be∣leeue that the bodie of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Marie, and that but once, namely when he was conceiued by the holy Ghost, and borne. But this cannot stand, if the bodie of Christ be made of bread and his blood of wine, as they must needs be, if there be no succession or annihila∣tion but a reall conuersion of substances in the sacrament: vnlesse we must be∣leeue contrarieties, that his bodie was made of the substance of the Virgin, &

not of the Virgin; made once and not once but often. Againe, if his bodie and blood be vnder the formes of bread and wine, then is he not as yet ascended into heauen, but remaines still among vs. Neither can hee be said to come frō heauen at the day of iudgement: for hee that must come thence to iudge the quicke and dead, must be absent from the earth. And this was the auncient faith. Augustine saith,* 1.1 that Christ according to his maiestie and prouidence and grace is present with vs to the ende of the world: but according to his assumed flesh he is not alwaies with vs. Cyril saith, He is absent in bodie and present in vertue, whereby all things are gouerned. Vigilius saith, That he is gone from vs accor∣ding to his humanitie: he hath left vs in his humanitie: in the forme of a seruant absent from vs: when his flesh was on earth, it was not in heauen: being on earth, hee was not in heauen: and being now in heauen, he is not on earth. Fulgentius saith, One and the same Christ according to his humane substance, was absent from heauen whē he was on earth: and left the earth when he ascended into heauen.

Reason II. This bodily presence ouerturnes the nature of a true bodie, whose common nature or essentiall propertie it is, to haue length, breadth, & thicknes, which beeing taken away a bodie is no more a bodie. And by rea∣son of these three dimensions, a bodie can occupie but one place at once, as Aristotle said,* 1.2 the propertie of a bodie is to be seated in some place, so as a mā may say where it is. They therefore that hold the bodie of Christ to be in ma∣ny places at once, doe make it no bodie at all; but rather a spirit, and that infi∣nit. They alleadge that God is almightie; that is true indeede, but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do, but what he wil doe. And I say further because god is omnipotent, therfore there be some things which he cannot do, as for him to denie himselfe, to lie, & to make the parts of a con∣tradiction to be both true at the same time. To come to the point, if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once, he should make it to be no bodie while it remaines a bodie: and to be circumscribed in some one place and not circumscribed, because it is in many places at the same time: to be visible in heauen and inuisible in the sacrament; and thus should he make contradictions to be true: which to doe, is against his nature, and ar∣gues rather impotēcie then power. Augustine saith to this purpose.* 1.3 If he could lie, deceiue, he deceiued, deale vniustly, he should not be omnipotent. And, Therefore hee is omnipotent, because he can not doe these things. Againe, He is called omnipo∣tent•• by doing that which he will, and not by doing that which he will not: which if it should befall him, he should not be omnipotent.

Reason III. Transubstantiation ouerturnes the very supper of the Lord. For in euery sacrament there must be a signe, a thing signified, and a propor∣tion or relation betweene them both. But popish reall presence takes al away: for when the bread is really turned into Christs bodie, and the wine into his bloode, then the signe is abolished, and there remaines nothing but the outwarde formes or appearance of breade and wine. Againe, it abolisheth the endes of the sacrament, whereof one is to remember Christ till his comming againe, who beeing present in the sacrament bodily, needes not to bee remembred: because helpes of remembrance are of things absent. A∣nother ende is to nourish the soule vnto eternall life: but by transubstanti∣ation

the principall feeding is of the bodie and not of the soule, which is one∣ly fed with spirituall foode: for though the bodie may be bettered by the food of the soule, yet can not the soule be fedde with bodily foode.

Reason IV. In the sacrament the bodie of Christ is receiued as it was cru∣cified, & his blood as it was shed vpon the crosse: but now at this time Christs bodie crucified, remaines still as a bodie, but not as a bodie crucified; because the act of crucifying is ceased. Therefore it is faith alone, that makes Christ crucified to be present vnto vs in the sacrament. Againe, that blood which ran out of the feete and hands and side of Christ vpon the crosse, was not gathe∣red vp againe and put into the veines: nay, the collection was needles, because after the resurrection, he liued no more a naturall but a spirituall life: & none knowes what is become of this blood. The Papist therefore can not say it is present vnder the forme of wine locally: and we may better say it is receiued spiritually by faith, whose propertie is to giue a being to things which are not.

Reason V. 1. Cor. 10.3. The fathers of the old testament did eate the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke: for they dranke of the rocke which was Christ. Now they could not eate his bodie which was cruci∣fied, or drinke his blood shedde bodily, but by faith: because then his bodie and blood were not in nature. The Papists make answer, that the fathers did eate the same meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke with themselues, not with vs. But their answer is against the text. For the Apostles intent is to prooue, that the Iewes were euery way equall to the Corinthians, because they did eate the same spirituall meate, and dranke the same spirituall drinke with the Corinthians; otherwise his reason prooues not the point which he hath in hand, namely that the Israelites were nothing inferiour to the Corin∣thians.

Reason VI. And it is said, the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: so it may be saide, that the sacrament of the Lords supper was made for man, and not man for it: and therefore man is more excellent then the sacrament. But if the signes of bread and wine be really turned into the bo∣die and blood of Christ, then is the sacrament infinitely better then man; who in his best estate is onely ioyned to Christ, and made a member of his mysti∣call bodie: whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacra∣ment or outward elements indeede are not better then man: the end beeing al∣waies better then the thing ordained to the ende. It remaines therefore that Christs presence is not corporall but spirituall. Againe in the supper of the Lord, euery beleeuer receiueth whole Christ, God and man, though not the godhead: now by this carnall eating, we receiue not whole Christ, but onely a part of his manhood: and therefore in the sacrament there is no carnall eating, and consequently no bodily presence.

Reason VII. The iudgement of the auncient Church. Theodoret saith,* 1.4 The same Christ, who called his naturall bodie foode and bread, who also called him∣selfe a vine, he vouchsafed the visible signes the name of his owne bodie, not chaun∣ging nature, but putting grace to nature, whereby he meanes consecration. And,* 1.5 The mysticall signes after sanctification loose not their proper nature. For they re∣maine in their first nature, and keepe their first figure and forme: and as before,

may be touched and seene: and that which they are made, is vnderstood, beleeued, a∣dored. Gelasius saith,* 1.6 Bread and wine passe into the substance of the bodie & blood of Christ, yet so as the substance or nature of bread and wine ceaseth not. And they are turned into the diuine substance, yet the bread and wine remaine still in the propertie of their nature. Lumbard saith,* 1.7 If it be asked what conuersion this is, whether formall, or substantiall, or of an other kind, I am not able to define. And that the fathers held not transubstantiatiō, I proue it by sundrie reasons. First, they vsed in former timesa 1.8 to burne with fire that which remained after the ad∣ministration of the Lords supper. Secondly by the sacramentall vnion of the bread and wine with the bodie and blood of Christ, they vsed to confirme the personall vnion of the manhood of Christ with the godhead against he∣retickes: which argument they would not haue vsed, if they had beleeued a popish reall presence. Thirdly it was a custome in Constantinople, that if ma∣ny parts of the sacrament remained after the administration thereof was en∣ded, that young children should be sent for from the schoole to eate them; who ne∣uerthelesse were barred the Lords table.* 1.9 And this argues plainely that the Church in those daies, tooke the bread after the administration was ended, for common bread. Againe, it was once an order in the Romane Church, that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread, which had beene con∣secrated.* 1.10 But this order cannot stand with the reall presence, in which the bread is turned both into the bodie and blood. Nicholaus Cabasilas saith, Af∣ter he hath vsed some speech to the people, hee erects their mindes, and lif••s their thoughts from earth and saith, Sursum corda, Let vs lift vp our hearts, let vs thinke on things aboue, and not on things that are vpon the earth. They consent & say, that they lift vp their hearts thither, where is their treasure, and where Christ sits at the right hand of his father.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Tract. 1. in Ioh. Li. 9. in Ioh. c. 21. Contr. Eu∣tich. l. 1. & 4 Lib. 2. ad Thrasi mun∣dum.
• * 1.2

  cap. de cate∣gor. quant.
• * 1.3

  De Symb. ad Catech. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.4

  Dialog. 1. immutab.
• * 1.5

  same dialog.
• * 1.6

  Lib. de duab. nat. Christ.
• * 1.7

  Li. 4. dist. 11.
• a 1.8

  Hesych. lib. 2. c. 8. in Le∣uiticum. Theodoret. dialog. 2.
• * 1.9

  Euang. l. 4. Niceph. l. 17 c. 25.
• * 1.10

  Am••la. 2. l. de off. eccles. c. 12. & 15. Li. de expos. Liturg. c. 26.