Christian true Philosophy the soule of man being a spirituall and indiuisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of mans body exercising all distinct operations in them why is it impossible for God to giue his humane body distant presences and a spirituall manner of being in the Sacrament when as by personall vnion with himselfe he giueth to the same body a far higher and more inconceiuable manner of beeing MY fift Argumâ—nt is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and entire in many places at once much lesse in places as farre distant as East and West Heauen and Earth Now heere againe is hee faine to fly as before to Gods omnipotency That is their Deus è machina as they had wont to speake that is the knife still at hand to helpe to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and absurd fantasies they haue snarled themselues in And the better to enforce this Catholike Answer that seâ—ueth them for the saluing of all sores hee reckoneth vp a long bead roll of wonderfull works as the Creation the Resurrection the Hypostaticall vnion the Trinity in Unity the torment of Spirits by corporall fire Christ comming out of the Sepulcher without remooving the huge stone his entring into the house while the doores were still shut his appearing to Paul on earth while hee was still in heauen which he telleth vs Bellarmine hath plainely prooued his piercing of the solide Orbes of heauen in his Ascention the soule being at once entirely in distant parts of mans body c. And then demandeth why God cannot cause Christs body to be as well one and the same whole and entire in so many seuerall distant places at once the rather since that it is equall aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place as for one body to be in many places 1. Here are diuers things that are questionable both in Diuinity and Philosophy which albeit he take pro concessis will not so easily be granted him till they be better prooued then as yet they are howsoeuer we exclude not diuerse of them out of the reach of Gods omnipotency euen as he vnderstandeth them as 1. The manner of the soules being in distant parts of the body is disputable nor is there the same reason of bodies and of spirits 2. The torment of spirits whether it be by corporall fire or no is not agreed on as a matter of faith Bellarmine himselfe so confesseth 3. The manner of Christs apparition to S. Paul is not certaine Neither doth Bellarmine prooue that Christ was below on earth or neere the earth in his humanity nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. Steuen saw him in heauen the heauens opened Paul was rapt vp himselfe into heauen Yea in heauen and from heauen it was that Christ appeared to him if we may beleeue Pope Gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for Ambrose Nor can Bellarmine produce any one of the Ancients that saith otherwise Howbeit neither do we so pen vp Christ in heauen but that he may at his pleasure though ordinarily he doth not descend 4. For Christs comming in to his Disciples when the doores were shut Why might not as Ierome speaketh the creature giue way to the Creator as the iron gate did to Peter It is said saith Durand one of their Schoolemen that Christ came when the doores were shut but it is not said that he came in through the doores so shut he might enter in by some other place or cause the doores to open suddenly and shut instantly againe 5. For Christs resurrection Let him heare the same Durand It cannot saith hee be prooued by any Text of Scripture that Christ rose againe while the Tombe was so shut and so consequently that his body passed through the stone Or if Durands authority will not serue let them heare Pope Leo in one of his decretall Epistles Christs body saith he rose againe the stone being rolled away 6. For his Ascension to omit that this solidity of the Orbes is in Philosophy a thing questionable and such a point as if it bee denyed this great Doctor will hardly be euer able to make good I answer with Durand that Whether the heauens bee divisible in their owne nature or by divine vertue as the one they well may bee and the other certainly they are there is no necessity that Christs body in his Ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the Orbes So that in none of these Examples there is any necessitie of two bodies being in one place at once Which yet if it were prooued if they will beleeue their owne Schoolemen were not suffiicient For howsoeuer this great Doctor tell vs that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to be in one place and for one body to bee in many places yet they say that it is not so Though two bodies saith Aquinas may be in one places at once yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once The former is not possible but by miracle the latter not at all It is not alike saith Durand for two bodies to be at once in one place and for one body to be at once in more places then one For the one implieth a contradiction the other doth not the former he meaneth though it may seeme so to doe 2. And so he hath a direct answer why wee deny that a body can be in diuerse places at once notwithstanding we beleeue and acknowledge Gods wonderfull workes of Creation Resurrection Christs Incarnation and those vnsearchable mysteries of the Trinitie and Hypostaticall vnion c. because the one implyeth a contradiction those other doe not And here let me entreat the Reader since that these men so much presse vs with Gods omnipotency to cast his eye backe with me to those manifold impossibilities before mentioned and by themselues acknowledged euen in this very businesse concerning the Sacrament Whereby it may appeare that they make vse of it onely to serue their owne turnes vrging it then when it may stead them and denying it then when it doth not To recite againe some one or two of them onely adding one or two more to them Luthers opinion saith Bellarmine cannot be true because it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed and yet should become another And It is impossible saith Lanfranck that one thing should be turned into another and not cease to be so farre forth as it is converted It is impossible saith this Defendant that cannot endure here to heare of any impossibility That a man should be a Rocke or a Uine And It is impossible saith Bellarmine that bread should bee Christs body It is not possible saith Maironis that one should be in two times at
not taken nature away from it According to this forme he is not euery where For we must take heede that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body In a word As the Angel reasoneth speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other Behold I am with you till the worlds end And Me shall you not haue alwaies with you ' ' In regard saith he of his Maiestie his prouidence his grace we haue him alwaies here But in regard of his flesh which the word assumed which was borne of the Virgin nailed on the crosse c. We haue him not alwaies And why so Because he is gone vp into heauen and he is not here And againe speaking of Christâ— being on earth and not in heauen as man and yet in both places as God Man according to his body is in a place and passeth from a place and when hee commeth to another place is not in that place from which he came But God is euery where and is not contâ—ined in any place So that the Romanists if they will haue Christs Body in the Eucharist they must fetch it out of Heauen and indeed as if they had so done they doe in their Masse request God to send his Angels to carry it vp againe thither And their Glosse saith that so soone as men set their teeth in it it retireth instantly thither though that crosse their common tenent Or rather they must frame a new body and so make Christ haue two bodies one that remaineth whole still in heauen and another that the Priest maketh or createth here vpon earth But what speake I of two Bodies Christ must haue as many seuerall Bodies as there be consecrated Hoasts for the whole Body of Christ they say is in each Hoast yea more then so there is an whole entire mans body flesh blood and bones with all limmes and lineaments for so it must needs be if it be Christs naturall Body not in euery Communicants mouth onely but in euery crum of the Hoasâ— that they breake of it when they crush it betweene their teeth as they also flatly and precisely affirme And by this reason the whole body of Christ against all reason For it is a principle in Nature that The whole is euer greater then any part shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his Body then a nailes paring of his little finger then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse Euen an immortall body saith Augustine speaking of and instancing euen in Christs body is lesse in part then it is in the whole For a body being a substance the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke And since that the parts of a body are distant one from another and cannot all be together because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places the lesse parts lesser places and the great greater there cannot be either the whole quantitie or so great a quantitie in each single part but a greater quantitie in the greater parts and a lesser in the lesse and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole But if their opinion be true any part of Christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it is But how will you say is Christs Body and Blood conneighed vnto vs or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the Eucharist if it be not really there present I might with Aug. well in a word answer this Question How saith he shall I hold Christ when he is not here How can I stretch mine hand to Heauen there to lay hold on him Send thy faith thither saith he and thou hast him Thy forefathers held him in the flesh hold thou him in thy heart You haue him alwaies present in regard of his Maiestie but in regard of his Flesh as himselfe told his Disciples not alwaies But for fuller satisfaction I answer 1. Sacraments are seales annexed to Gods couenant And as a deede being drawne of the Princes gift concerning office land or liuelyhood and his broad seale annexed to it and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered that office or that land though lying an hundred miles of is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered as if it were really present So these seales being annexed to Gods Couenant of grace concerning Christ his Flesh and Blood and his Death and Passion and our title too and intereâ—t in either the things themselues euen Christs body and blood themselues though sited still in Heauen are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer when they are to him deliuered as if they were here really and corporally present 2. We receiue Christ in the Eucharist as in the Word and Baptisme wherein also we doe truly receiue him yea and feede on his flesh and blood as well as in the Encharist albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either We are buried together with Christ saith the Apostle by Baptisme into his Death And h As many of you as haue beene baptized into Christ haue put on Christ. We are dipped in our Lords passion saith Tertullian Sprinkle thy face with Christs blood saith Hierome speaking of Baptisme that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead Thou hast Christ saith Augustine at the present by faith at the present by the signe of him at the present by the Sacrament of Baptisme at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar Yea No man ought to doubt saith Augustine but that euery Faithfull one is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ and that he is not estranged from the communion of that Bread and Cup though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that Cup because he hath that which that Sacrament signifieth And for the Word Christian men saith Origen eate euery day the flesh of the Lambe because daily they receiue the Flesh of Gods word And The true Lambe is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world for Christ our Passeouer is offred for vs. Let the Iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a Lambe but let vs eate the flesh of the Word of God For he saith vnlesse ye eate my flesh ye shall haue no life in you This that I now speake is the Flesh of the Word
fruit of the vine in the next verse And that which is called Christs body by the Apostle is immediately after more then once or twice expounded to bee bread § 3. The very scope saith he or Bellarmine by him of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken as the seuen kine ten hornes c. And doth not the very nature of signes and Sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of or in them are to be taken to wit figuratiuely and symbolically not properly or essentially For what are Signes and Sacraments but reall parables both therefore tearmed Mysteries as Chrysostome noteth because one thing is seene in the one as heard in the other and some other thing vnderstood Or what is more vâ—uall then as Augustine and others well obserue that Signes and Sacraments be called by the names of those things which they are signes and sacraments of What Sacrament also is there wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed Circumcision is called the Covenant the pasohall Lambe the Passeouer the Rocke Christ Bapâ—â—sme the Laver of Regeneration And in like manner saith Augustine is the bread Christâ— body the name of the thing signified saith Theodoret being giuen to the signe So that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of Bellarmine In visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely But these places the seven kine and the ten hornes are visions and parables And therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely Why may not we as wel reason on this wise The very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them it is to bee vnderstood not properly but figuratiuely But it is a Sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed This is my bodie and This is my blood These wordes therefore wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the Sacrament are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely And so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required to wit not onely that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely § 4. In all such figuratiue speeches saith he further out of Bellarmine Semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum One thing is said to be another when it cannot be indiâ—idually or specifically the same but wholly different in nature from it A man for example as Christ was cannot but similitudinarily be a Rock a Vine or a Lion But in Christs words This is my body no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 1. In this speech of our Sauiour This is my body as well as in that speech of the Prophet This is Ierusalem or in that speech of the Apostle The Rocke was Christ is one thing to wit bread as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context the words of the Apostle and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers said to bee an other thing to wit the flesh of Christ which is wholly different in nature from it Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue theÌ„ contrary vnlesse you grant him the point in question which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion to wit that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it 2. A man may as well be a rocke as a rocke may bee a man or bread may be flesh And why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into Christ and so to become Christ as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of Christ and so to be the flesh of Christ that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other If they will say It is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of Christ before Christ was incarnate I might answer them as they vse to do vs that God is able to do all things And questionlesse it is as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh that as yet was not as that a little thinne wafer cake or the compasse of it at least should containe Christs whole and entire body here on earth while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven A creature may as well be and yet not be at once as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen Yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible that Christs body sitting whole and entire at the table should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched If these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima as he speaketh as monstrous absurdities as euer were any I know not what are 3. Obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say This or that thing is impossible yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries in the confuting one of another It is impossible saith this worthy writer for a man as Christ was otherwise then similitudinarily to be a rock or a vine It is impossible saith Aquinas that a man should be an Asse It is impossible saith the Glosse that bread should be Christs bodie It is altogether impossible saith Bellarmine that this sentence This bread is my body should be true properly It is impossible saith Biel that Christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled being impassible It is impossible saith Aquinas that Christ in his last Supper should giue his body impassible It is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew It is impossible that Christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely It is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there It is impossible that Christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the Sacrament It is impossible
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
one no more then Christs body and the glorification of it nor againe the transfiguration the present glorification The Argument therefore is neither idle nor forcelessâ— for ought that he hath yet shewed Diuision 10. HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered For who but a babbling ignorant Person would as he doth there make such an inference Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion which tediously and needelesly he prooueth But they are not so in the Eucharist Ergo the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it For if the Argument were good we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus for example after he had blessed and brake bread he vanished out of the Disciples sight when he hid himselfe from the Iewes who would haue stoned him in the Temple not by running into a corner as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine but by becomming vndiscernable by them as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built whence they ment to tumble him As if locall extension visibilitie palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour MY fourth Argument was taken from the Nature of Christs Body which hath slesh blood and bones is an organicall body endued with limmes and lineaments yea and life too Whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the Eucharist is as Epiphanius well obserueth liuelesse and limmelesse c. Now here according to his vsuall manner he letteth the Argument goe and falleth to raile downe right that it is an argument grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered of a babbling and ignorant person and a stupide professour He sheweth where his shoe wringeth him Yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it he frameth me an Argument of his owne on this wise Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his Passion But they are not so in the Eucharist ergò Whereas I tell him that Christs body hath flesh blood and bones and sense and life and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall But their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these And then he telleth vs that I might as well affirme that Christ had no body when at Emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his Disciples when he hid himselfe from the Iewes that would haue stoned him in the Temple when he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long c. 1. Let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had Christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure as his Disciples had when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection which in prosecution of mine Argument I produce also and presse did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands nor feete flesh blood nor bone life nor limme and the consequence shall then bee granted him but neuer till then And looke what limmes and lineaments our Sauiour then had when hee was here on earth the same he retaineth still Augustine demanded whether Christs body had bones and blood still and other bodily limmes and lineaments I beleeue saith he that Christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth when he went vp into heauen For so when the Disciples doubted whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw he had them see and feele his hands and feete for that a spirit had not flesh and bones as they saw that hee had So he was on earth so he was seene to be when he went to heauen and so shall he as the Angell told come againe from thence But such wee are sure their little breaden God is not It is none of Christ therefore 2. Looke how this man argueth so did the Heretâ—kes of old to prooue our Sauiour Christ to haue an aiery spirituall aad fantasticall body Let it not deceiue you you simple sots saith Iohn of Ierusalem when you reade that Christ shewed Thomas his hands and his side or when you heare him say that he hath flesh and bones These things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting Disciples But he shewed that hee had an aiâ—ry and spirituall body in truth when he came to his Disciples while the doores were shut and hee vanished out of their sight And to the like purpose did the Marciâ—nites vrge his escape froÌ„ those of Nazareth Now what do the ancient Fathers hereunto answer That Christs body saith Tertullian is no fancy euer hereby appeareth in that it endâ—red violent handling when hee was taken and held and haled to the hill-brow For albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them being first forcibly held and after let goe either the throng being dissolued or forcibly broken through yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion For he had a true body still and hands that hee touched others still with and were by them felt and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was And againe when Christ sheweth his Disciples his hands and his feet without doubt he hath hands and feet and bones which a spirit hath not And Ierome refuting Iohn of Ierusalem As Christ shewed his Disciples true hands and a true side so hee ate truely with them spake with his tongue truely to them and with his hands truely brake and reached them out bread For that he suddenly vanished out of their sight as before his passion also at Nazareth he passed through the midst of them that is he made an escape out of their hands it was done by his diuine power not by any fantasticall delusion Could not Christ doe as much as some Magitians haue done Apollonius as he stood in the Court before Domitian vanished suddenly out of sight Yet doe you not therefore match Christs power with Magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not to eate without teeth breake bread without hands walke without feet speake without tongue shew a side without ribs And whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that those two Disciples did not know him till a little before hee left them Ierome maketh answer out of the Text it selfe that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene but because their eyes were held that they might not know him And the same Ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages Christ saith hee had hands and sides had breast and bellie too he that had hands and feete had armes
Bodies without bignesse Parts bigger then the whole The whole lesse then the least part A growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it The same body that is entire in heauen still in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth These are magicall mysteries indeed which it is no maruell if this ignorant Minister cannot conceiue 2 Yea but our Sauiours wordes of a Camell passing through a needles eye sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension that is as much as if hee had said they shew that a bodie may become no bodie and yet be a body still The speech is hyperbolicall and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken as Piscator well obserueth answering Bellarmine from whom he here hath it then of many other things spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde Quantitie saith Bonaventure is of the verity of a body and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it And though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body such as a Camels is and such as hee granteth Christs to be should be without it Yea and therefore also not the veritie onely as this fellow would haue it but the quantity also as Bonauenture auoweth and this fellow denieth that is the exterior bignesse of Christs body must needs bee with it in the Sacrament if it bee at all there 3. To conclude this wilde discourse indeed because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place wee reason no otherwise howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning then wise and learned men yea Angels too haue taught vs to reason For as the Angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke Christ in the Sepulcher He is not here for he is risen againe which were no good Argument if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once So the ancient Fathers also reason in their disputes against Heretikes where it stood them vpon to speake warily and not to argue wildly as this giddy braines tearmeth it Christs body saith Theodoret albeit it be now glorified yet is a bodie still and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had Which as the Angels teach shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen But they saw it then circumscribed Yea our Lord himselfe saith You shall see the Son of Man come in the clouds But that nature cannot be seene that is not circumscribed He sheweth then that his body is circumscribed It is not therefore changed into another nature but it remaineth still a true body though filled with divine glory So Fulgentius One and the same Christ saith hee is both locall man of man and God infinite of his Father One and the same according to his humane nature absent from heauen when he was here vpon earth and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his divine and infinite nature neither leaving heauen when he came downe from heauen nor forsaking the earth when hee went vp into heauen Which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes who to shew that his humanity was locall said I goe vp to my Father c. Now how went he vp into heauen but because hee was locall and true man Or how is hee yet present with his faithfull ones but that hee is infinite and true God And Uigilius most euidently against Eutyches to passe by all other places which are more then one in him If the Word saith hee and the Flesh were both of one nature how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word For when it to wit Christs flesh or his body his humanity was on earth it was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not on earth for that according to it we expect Christ to come from heauen whom according to the Word that is his Deitie we beleeue to be with vs on earth It is apparent therefore that the same Christ is of a twofold nature and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti◠but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity And hee concludeth his discourse thus This is the Catholike Faith and Confession which the Apostles haue deliuered Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull keepe to this day And if this be so then sure the Popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it is not Diuision 12. PAge 16. and 17. My Adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of Christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the Sacrament and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof whereas Caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved how to wit Christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth can be eaten and receiued by vs. Wee confesse it saith Beza to be an incomprehensible mystery wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen and is no where but there should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else This indeed is a mystery and true Iewell of Protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived as Caluin Beza and other chiefe Calvinists seeme sometime to meane it then to conceiue all those true miracles which we teach to be wrought by God in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull Sacrament Yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that Christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes as Caluin expressely affirmeth and so by vt eaten that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him If by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate Christ in the Sacrament as this Minister solueth the former riddle no more present therein nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes then the land conveighed by an Indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof or then he is present in the water of Baptisme they are his owne comparisons then is their Sacrament a bare signe and figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it For what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another bread for example remembring our Saviours passion And then are Caluin Beza
it pleaseth Bellarmine to cite him as if hee had said The high Priest that he sacrificeth the sauing Host that is aboue him excuseth himselfe to him or to it crying out Thou hast said Doe this c. But let Dennis speake in his owne language or but as their owne writers translate him and both Bellarmines mis-alleadging of him will soone be discouered and the force of his reason drawne from thence vtterly dissolued That which he saith is word for word thus The diuine Hierarch standing at the diuine Altar celebrateth that is praiseth and extolleth Christs holy diuine workes out of his most diuine care of vs for our saluation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated Which hauing celebrated and by contemplation with intellectuall eyes taken a venerable and spirituall view of them he passeth vnto the symbolicall celebration or holy administration of them and that according to diuine Tradition Wherefore religiously and hierarchically that is as becommeth an Hierarch or a Bishop after the holy celebration or solemne praise of those diuine workes he maketh an Apologie for himselfe in regard of that boly seruice or sacrifice as they translate it though the word be more generall that is to worthy for him to deale with crying out to him to whom but to Christ Iesus before mentioned Thou hast said Doe this in remembrance of me And then hauing requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and diuine seruice in holy manner and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it hee performeth the most diuine seruice c. For vncouering the bread that was hitherto couered and vndiuided and diuiding it into many pieces and distributing to them all the one onely Cup be doth symbolically further their vnitie thereby performing his most holy seruice Now where is there here any mention of an Host or affirming that Host to be aboue him or better then himselfe or making any speech at all to it And yet if it were Christ to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it what should he speake to him as sited else-where when hee hath him corporally there present The rather if as they tell vs he seeth there what we doe and heareth what we say though he say nothing himselfe because he would not be discouered Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy seruice then and there to be performed to be too worthy for him to deale with And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministery of the word that no man is sufficient or worthy enough for such a worke Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptisme and the administration of it There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all helpe to establish the Popish Transubstantiation And yet this is all that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce Who though indeede otherwise not free from sundry fantasticall conceipts yet is so farre from enclining to that prodigious fancy that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament as the auncient Scholiast also hath well obserued on him runneth cleane another way He calleth the Eucharist as you haue heard a symbolicall seruice and a distribution of bread and a Cup and the bread and the Cup vsed in it symboles or signes and images or pictures and paternes resembling the truth of their principals to which he doth also there oppose thē And not we but the Monke Maximus aunciently expounding him Marke you saith he how still he calleth this diuine seruice a Symbolicall seruice that is a seruice saith he consisting of Symboles or Signes and the holy gifts themselues signes or symboles of the true things aboue And againe He calleth them pictures and images of true things vnseene And if we aske him what that word Symbole or Signe signifieth A Symbole or Signe saith he is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible as bread and wine for the spirituall and diuine foode and refection and the like Yea hereupon he inferreth that because these things are Symboles and Signes they are not therefore the truth it selfe For the image saith he else-where and that from Dennis himselfe too albeit it haue neuer so neere a resemblance yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance The thing indeede it selfe saith this Dennis that by an exact image or picture is represented is if we may so say thereby doubled while the truth is shewed in the type and the precedent or principall in the picture or patterne but yet there is for all that a diuersitie of substance in either From this Dennis his owne grounds therefore we may wel reason and conclude thus against the Popish doctrine which they would haue him to vphold No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images so he tearmeth them of the spirituall foode to wit the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it Or as Maximus directeth vs No type is the Truth for it were then no type But these are Types and consequently other then the Truth The second allegation is out of Irenaeus 1. Irenaeus saith he denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread but 2. The Eucharist consisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may be no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection These words indeede are found the most of them in Irenaeus but are foulely disioynted and related in other manner then they lye in Irenaeus his context As the bread saith he that is from the earth after diuine inuocation is no more common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heauenly So our bodies receiue the Eucharist are not now corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection 3. Where first He denieth the bread after consecration to be any more common bread as before him Iustin Martyr that they receiued those creatures not as common bread or common drinke And doth not their Cyril as before you heard deny the oyle also after it is consecrate to be any more common oyle Or may we not say truly as the Auncients also oft doe yea dare any Christian man say otherwise but that the water in Baptisme being once consecrated is no more common Water There is nothing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expell either other Secondly he saith that the Encharist consisteth of two things the one earthly the other heauenly And doe not all Sacraments the
to be found in euery substâ—ntiall conuersion whereby one substance is destroyed and another succeedeth in the roome of it And consequently for that or nothing must follow that it is not absurd so to say Did euer man thinke we either sober or in his right wits thus reason In euery substantiall conuersion one thing succeedeth in the roome of another and is turned into it Therefore whatsoeuer thing doth succeede onely in the roome or place of another is conuerted into it Suppose a puppy should get vp into the Chaire that this Disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse after he quitted it would he not take it euill if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy because the puppy were got into his place Or suppose some light-fingred person hauing pickt his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it should put in a copper counter or two in the roome of it would it follow that his gold were really turned into copper because the one is gone and the other is come in the roome of it Or suppose an old house pulled or burnt downe and an other raised vp againe in the roome of it and that iust of the same proportion with it would any man say that the one were turned into the other because the one succeeded in the roome of the other being destroied But idle and absurd consequences are no strange matters with this Disputant for all his great learning that which a little learning will serue to discouer 2. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs that Christs body is called bread still after Consecration as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent because it had sometime so beene I say among many other things which he here ouerslippeth that the case by their owne confession is not alike for that of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent but of Christs body it cannot be said that euer it was bread he replieth that albeit we cannot say of Christs body that euer it was bread no more then of heate that euer it was cold nor of fire we can say that euer it was wood though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced Yet it may be said to haue bin of bread because in this their prodigious Metamorphosis or methyleosis or what euer you will tearme it for new inuentions require new names the whole substance to vse his owne tearmes that is both the matter and forme of bread passeth into a praeexistent substance to wit Christs body in the roome of it introduced so as nothing thereof remaineth whereas in other naturall conuersions the matter remaineth still though receiuing another forme In which few lines it is not easie to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmines doctrine and to his owne assertions For first If it cannot be said of Christs body that euer it was Bread here is it affirmed by them as Bellarmine himselfe also acknowledgeth that Christs body is therefore called Bread because it was bread before Neither doth Bellarmine at all controle them therein yea he confesseth with Caietan that it may truly be said That is now Christs body that once was bread 2. If it may be said to haue beene of bread why may it not be said that once it was bread as of Adam because he was of the earth it may truly be said that once hee was earth As for his instances they are idle the one is of an accident not made of but succeeding onely in the roome of another or in the same subiect whence it hath expelled the other and for the other we may say truly that a fire made of wood not onely was wood once but is wood still till the forme of the wood be vtterly destroied and the wood turned into coales or dissolued into ashes whereof we may also truly then say that those coales or those ashes were once wood in such sense as they say that the rod was sometime a snake 3. If it may at any time be said Christs body hath beene of bread it might at sometime be said Christs body is of bread and if of bread why not a breaden body which yet Bellarmine will by no meanes admit For what is a body of bread as was said before but a breaden body as a pot of earth an earthen pot a dish of wood a wooddendish c. 4. Not to demand if nothing remaine of the bread what figure and colour and weight and taste it is that we discerne in the Eucharist whither the breads or Christs bodie because for those things they tell vs that they hang I know not how nor where neither in the bread that now is not nor in Christs body neither the accidents whereof they are not and in that answer we must rest though it be hard for any man indued with reason so to doe for them since no other from them can be had I aske if the whole substance of the bread be vtterly abandoned so as nothing thereof remaineth how saith Bellarmine and other of them that the bread is not annihilated or is not cleerely brought to nothing and checke vs for belying them when we say that any such thing is maintained by them albeit their great Master of the Sentences say as much For how is it not annihilated if nothing remaine of it 5. If no bread bee left in the Eucharist how said hee before that Christ is there contained in bread and that the ancient Fathers so affirme For how can hee be contained in that that is not 6. If the whole substance of it be destroyed so that nothing remaineth of it how doth the whole substance of it passe as hee saith into Christs body For how can that passe into it that is not at all Or how can that substance passe into the substance of some other thing that vtterly perisheth and ceaseth to be so soone as euer that other substance approacheth 7. If the very substance of bread passeth into the substance of Christs body then Christs body belike doth not barely succeed in the roome of it as before was affirmed but is produced therefore and consisteth of it which yet they vsually deny Else how doth the substance of the one passe into the substance of the other 8. If the whole substance of bread that is both matter and forme passeth into Christs body why may it not as wel be said of Christs body that that body was once bread as of Moses his rod it might well bee said that that rod was once a Snake or of the wine that our Sauiour so miraculously produced that that wine was sometime water the rather since that but part of the substance to wit the matter onely of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the
once And is it not as impossible then for one to bee in two places at once And it is impossible that one single effect should haue diuerse totall causes and impossible therefore that one and the same accident should bee in diuerse subiects And why not as impossible for one subiect to haue diverse accidents as diuerse seates sites qualities and quantities at once which Christsbody must needs haue iâ— it bee with vs in the Eucharist It is impossible saith Durand that one and the same thing should mooue two contrary wayes at once And It is impossible saith Aquinas that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuerse seuerall places at once And It is impossible that one and the selfe same thing should both rest and stirre at once And yet should Christs body if it were in the Host or if it were the very Host rather doe all this when at the same time it both resteth in the Pyx in one place and goeth in Procession in another place and is in diuerse processions or on sundry seuerall occasions carried contrary wayes to seuerall persons and places at the same instant No more therefore doe we curb or restraine Gods â—mnipâ—tency when we deny that a body can bee by any meanes in two distant places at once then they doe when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken And for the reason of our denyall let them heare be side Durands Aquinas his confession For one body saith hee to bee locally in two places at once it implieth a contradiction and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once no not by miracle neither For those things that imply contradiction God cannot do God therefore cannot make a body to bee locally in two places at once The very selfe same saith Aegidius too and Amolynus on him that although a thousand miracles were wrought nothing could bee effected that implyeth a contradiction as this doth CErtainely the holy Fathers doubted not to affirme that Christ left his body here on earth and yet assumed with him the same bodie into heauen hee held his body in his owne hands at his last Supper and distributed it severally to his Apostles as hath beene already out of S. Chrysostome S. Augustine and other holy Fathers formerly by me alleâ—dged Insomuch as Melancthon one of the maine pillars of Protestant Religion vnderstood the opinion of the holy Fathers so well in this point and attributed so much withall to Gods omnipotency as hee writeth thus of this very Argument I had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as Zwinglians doe that Christs body cannot bee but in one place at once And S. Augustine as Bellarmine prooueth was so farre from denying this to the bodie of Christ as he doubted whether the holy Martyrs may not be at the selfe same time in severall Churches and Memories erected of them albeit naturally no spirit nor body can bee more then in one place or remaine without some certaine place of beeing which latter is in the places ciced by this Minister out of him onely affirmed And if a perfect substance or nature as was the humanity of Christ could want the naturall personality and subsistence thereof supplyed by the divine person and hypostasis of the Sonne of God as our Christian faith teacheth vs why cannot in like manner by Gods omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remaine without actuall inhering and being in their naturall subiect His other Arguments page 15. are drops of an afterstorme and obiections gathered out of S. Augustine which doe onely prooue that Christ is not visibly but in heauen not denying his sacramentall beeing in many places as this Minister would haue him And surely our Saviour himselfe in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn verse 61. solueth this very obiection as S. Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when perceiving that his Disciples murmared at his promise of giuing his flesh for meate c. he said to them Doth this scandalize you If then you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where he was before c. As if hee had said Are you scandalised that I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food what then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I canso giue you my flesh when I â—…ll ascend to heauen and be absent so sarre from you § 2. THe places of the Fathers here pointed at were before answered where by him they were aâ— large alledged And howsoeuer Augustine spake modestly after his manner of a difficult Question not daring peremptorily to determine by what meanes that was effected that by diuers other meanes might be yet in his bookes against Faâ—stus the Manichie hee saith expressely and peremptorily that Christ in regard of his bodily presence could not bee at once in the Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the Crosse also as they absurdly imagined and maintained that he was And againe in his Comment aries on the Gospell of S. Iohn not as Bellarmine corruptly citeth him as hee doth also many others that Christs body in which he rose againe M AY be but as Peter Lombard and other of their owne Authors acknowledge him to say that it MVST be in one place howsoeuer his verity that is his Deitie be every where Yea discusing the question at large in one of his Epistles and hauing concluded the Negatiue hee saith that they take away the truth of his body that maintaine it to be in many places at once Whereas though immortality bee conferred on it yet nature is not taken from it To which purpose hee disputeth much of the nature of a true body and deliuereth those things which I presse out of him all which together with the testimonies of other of the Ancients this superficiall Answerer passeth ouer with sad silence onely boldly and bâ—asen facedly auouching that all that is alleadged out of Augustine prooueth nothing but this that Christ is not visibly but in Heauen Did hee thinke that his Reader would not cast an eye on them whem they were verbatim set downe before him § 3. Yea but our Saviour himselfe he saith solveth this Obiection Iohn 6. 61. as Chrysostome vnderstandeth him when hee saith Doth this scandalize you What if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascending where hee was before c as if hee had said Are you scandalized because I said being now present with you I will giue my flesh for food What then will you doe or how farre will you be from beleeuing that I can so giue you my flesh when I shall ascend to heauen and be so farre aboue from you 1. Where Chrysostome thus expoundeth the place I know not Vpon the place I am sure he hath nothing but this that Christ by these wordes did intimate to them his Deitie Yea so Iansenius also saith that Chrysostome vnderstandeth these words
as spoken to assure them that hee came downe from heauen The truth is this exposition it not Chrysostomes but Bellarmines from whom this Collector hath filched it who yet to adde some grace and procure some weight to an inuention of his owne saith that c Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at some such thing And what Bellarmine saith cautelously and timorously Chrysostome to him seemeth to point at that this blinde bayard saith boldly and confidently that Chrysostome saith and vpon the Exposition as backed now sufficiently with Chrysostome he buildeth a peremptory answer to all mine Obiections that will easily remooue them all Did this man thinke that these things would euer be examined Or is his credit so meane already that he need not feare to bee discredited that hee dare vse such sorry shifts as these are 2. Grant all to be Chrysostomes and all to bee as true as if not Chrysostome but Christ himselfe had said it what will thence bee concluded to prooue that Christs body may be in many places at once But since hee hath cited this place though to small purpose let him heare Augustines words on it going directly agaiust them and these absurd fantasies of theirs Christ saith he doth in these wordes solue that that mooued them and openeth that whereas they were jcandalized For they thought that hee would giue them out his body but he told them that be should gâ—e vp whole into heauen As if hee had said When you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where hee was before certainely then you shall see that he doth not giue out his body in such a manner as you imagine Certainely euen then you shall vnderstand that his grace is not consumed by bits And to Augustine addewe Athanasius one as ancient as the Nicene Councell and a principall person in it Christ disputing saith hee of the eating of his body and seeing many therevpon scandalized thus spake Doth this scandalize you What then if you shall see the Sonne of Man ascend where before he was It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speake are spinit and life For heere he spake of both both his flesh and his spirit and distinguished the spirit from the flesh that beleeuing not onely that that appeared to the eyes but that also that was invisible they might learne that those things also that he spake were not carnall but spirituall For to how many men could his body haue sufficed to eate of that it might be the foodalso of the whole world But therefore made he mention of his ascension into heauen that hee might withdraw them form the corporall vnderstanding and that then they might vnderstand that his flesh which hee spake of was heauenly meate from aboue and spirituall food to be giuen by him For saith he Those things which I haue spoken to you are spirit and life Which is euen all one as if hee had said My body that is shewed and giuen shall be giuen to bee meate for the whole world that it may spiritually be distributed to each one and become to each one a safegard and preseruatiue for resurrection to life eternall So little doth this place auaile for this purpose as the Ancients both Latine and Greeke expound it making much rather against them this popish doctrine of a carnall feeding on Christs flesh which those Fathers gather and prooue thence to be wholly spirituall But thus iudicious is he in the choice of his allegations and so sincere in his citations of the Ancients putting downe their names only but pointing to no place that his fraud and forgeries may not be discouered and fastening vpon them his owne or his owne associates expositions wholly differing and dissenting from that that themselues say MOreouer it is a wilde kinde of arguing from the naturall and locall extension of bodies to inferre as my Adversary doth page 16. that by no possible power of God any body can want this locall extension this being a secondary effect of quantity and an accidentall propriety which God may therefore easily hinder and conserue without it bodily substance as our Sauiour himselfe insinuateth in the Gospell affirming for a thing possible with God to make a great Camell to passe through the eye of a needle by taking to wit from it exterior bignesse and locall extension Of which Camell so extenuated and straitned in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed which this Minister accounteth so absurd by vs held of Christs body in the Sacrament And supposing truely that the body of Christ hath no extension in place it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences as that any part of Christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body and his whole body lesse then any part of it For if neither the whole nor any part thereof as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all how can one part be said to bee bigger then the whole as of two blacke things a man should say one was whiter then the other when neither had any whitenesse at all in them § 4. TO the recitâ—ll of their absurd assertions that there is a whole Christ flesh blood and bone head hands and feet belly breast and backe in euery little wafer-cake and euery least crumme of each and consequently the whole body of Christ on earth lesse then the least limme or fingers end of it in heaven as also to the allegations out of Augustine that this cannot be for that in euery true body the parts cannot bee altogether but must haue their due distance and each of them his space or place according to his bignesse and none of them can be bigger then the whole He maketh answer that this is but a wilde kinde of reasoning and yet it is Augustine that so reasoneth whom hee might haue beene pleased to vse with better tearmes telleth vs what our Sauiour saith of a Camell passing thorow a needles ey as if what were spoken there by our Sauiour of the one did relieue the absurditie of the other which no whit it doth being onely an hyperbolicall speech vsed to set forth the impossibility with man of such a rich mans salvation as hee there speaketh of and informeth this ignorant Minister that neither the whole body of Christ nor any part of it as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all 1. Did any man euer before heare of a body without bignesse or a coâ—pus non quantum without those dimensions that are so vnseparable from a body that the very same name is giuen vnto either and wee haue no particular name either in Greeke or Latine to expresse the one by but that which is the vsuall appellation of the other But a number of such absurd dreames and dotages doth this prodigious doctrine produce Accidents without subiects