This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
[Sect. 26] All the circumstances of the action speake for, and fight with vs against transsubstantiation. For, as Iesus Christ made no lifting vp of the hoast, so he did not command the Apo∣stles to worship that which he held in his hands; and it is cer∣taine 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 pur∣pose 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 haue Iesus Christ to haue giuen to his Disciples, was impassible, and could not be broken, as being whole in euery 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 com∣parison 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 inui∣sible, speaking, and mouing it selfe at the Table, and not speaking nor being able to moue vnder the species of bread. Thus you haue two contrary Iesus Christs, and one of them more perfect then the other: for, to be impassible, is a per∣fection, and to be passible is an imperfection.
3 They agree with vs, that Iesus Christ in the Eucharist did eate and drinke with his disciples; then it followeth, (ac∣cording to the doctrine of the Church of Rome) that Iesus Christ did eate himselfe, and that he swallowed his whole bo∣dy
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 vs how that can profit vs touching our re∣demption. And if Iesus Christ did that to serue for an exam∣ple 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 effica∣cie 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 Eucha∣rist 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 haue 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 vnto the death, and swet drops
of bloud for griefe. And yet at one selfe same time our aduer∣saries make one Iesus Christ to be in the mouthes and sto∣mackes of the Apostles, which being impassible, suffered no paine nor griefe, neither sweat drops of bloud; which not onely makes two contrary Iesus Christs at one time, but also one Iesus Christ which is not our Sauiour, seeing he is exemp∣ted 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 haue done, if euery crum & peece thereof had bene Iesus Christs body fully and wholly.
7 But say that there was no bread remaining, yet the Apo∣stles in the meane time that Iesus Christ was vpon the crosse, or in the sepulcher, might among themselues celebrate the Sacrament: and so there should be one Iesus Christ vpon the crosse, with his hands and feete pierced with nayles and tor∣mented, 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 vnder the host without the crosse, and whipped without whips, which are apparent contradictions.