In Defence of the Matter constituting the Lordes Supper, and first against Page 409 Concomitancy. Bellar. Lib. 4. Cap. 21.
I.
AN Argument drawne from the hypostatical vnion of God, & man, and that which is naturall of the Flesh, and the Soule, to concomitancy, is of no force: because it is one thing to treate of flesh, and bloud, which are things substantiall, and entire partes of humane nature; but another thing, as they are given vnto vs, for meate and drinke, according to the voluntary, and Testamentall disposition of Christ: nei∣ther is therefore the Hypostaticall vnion of God and man broken, which was not broken in death, howsoever the soule and bloud were separated from the body.
II.
THe spirituall eating, (whereof onely the order of the Text in the Chap∣ter Page 410 cited sheweth, that mention is made) ought to bee distinguished from the Sacramentall eating, whereof here the question is: neyther ought that which is spoken Synecdochically of eating in some places, be taken exclusiuely; seeing also in other places, there is very often mention made of drinking.
III.
FRom false, ambiguous, and imperti∣nent Principles, a false, ambiguous, and impertinent consequence is drawn. Now the first Principle is false: for we doe not acknowledge any reall, or visi∣ble presence of Christs body & bloud in the Supper. In respect of the signes, it is wholy Sacramentall; in respect of the thing signified, meerely spirituall.
IIII.
THe second Principle is ambiguous, because the body and bloud of Christ are two wayes considered: one Page 411 way, as they are the partes of Christes humane nature; all which being vnable to bee sundered, liveth glorious: the o∣ther, as they are represented vnto vs Sacramentally in this action of the Supper; to witte, as both the body was offered vnto death for vs on the crosse, and his bloud out of the body powred forth: for the wordes added to the In∣stitution, doe plainely testifie, that the body and bloud of Christ, as things se∣parated in the sacrifice of the Crosse, are offered, and exhibited vnto vs in the Supper.
V.
THe third Principle is impertinent, and different from the question now in hand: because wee treate not here eyther of the vniversall presence of Christs Divinity, which pertayneth no∣thing to the speciall kindes: for if the adversary vnderstand the presence of nature, Christ shall bee aswell any where else, as in the Supper, because he Page 412 filleth all things: if the presence of grace, he affirmeth nothing that is proper to the bread, but what pertaineth to all the faithfull; or of the Hypostaticall v∣nion of the two natures, in respect wher∣of notwithstanding, we wil never affirm that the Divinity of Christ is with his humanity by a Concomitancy, because that were a Nestorian (heresie.)
VI.
THe Fathers which are cited, eyther spake Synecdochically, by the bo∣dy, vnderstanding the whole humane nature of Christ, as Cyprian, Hillarie, Ambrose: or of the whole person, wher∣of in the Supper we are made partakers, as Basil, Hierome, Chrysostome, Ori∣gen, the Nicene Synode: or Sacra∣mentally they vttered that of the signe, which is proper to the thing signified, as Augustine, Cyril, both he of Ierusa∣lem, and that other of Alexandria.
VII
Page 413The body of Christ, vnder the shew of bread, is Sacramentally offered vnto vs in the Supper, as it was crucifi∣ed, and broken, and his bloud as it was shed, (for Christ instituted the Supper for a remembrance of his death,) and yet is not his carkasse eaten, because Christ by his death purchased merite of life, for himselfe and his.
VIII.
It is one thing to speake of the body, & bloud of Christ, as touching them∣selues, and another thing according to the manner of a Sacrament: as touch∣ing themselues, the bloud of Christ cannot bee plucked from the body: that was done once on the Crosse: but as touching the nature of a Sacrament, they ought distinctly to be considered, partly, because in the Supper, they re∣present that vnto vs, which was once done, and partly also, because the perfe∣ction of our refreshing in Christ, is exhibited in the eating of Christes Page 414 flesh, and in the drinking of his bloud.
IX.
MIracles are not to be drawne into vse and rule, because every mira∣cle is vnwonted, and vnusuall: but those which are cited, were eyther devised of superstitious men; or false, and put forth to deceyue the simple; or lastly, brought forth by the helpe and furthe∣rance of the Devil, according as Christ, and Paul foretold of Antichrist,
