Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of scripture;1 are most incredible & monstrous, such as I gathered some out of your Annotations upon the new testament, as your selves had delivered them unto us. You cannot otherwise do, but take upon you some silly defence of your fellows Collections, whether with greater ignorance, or boldness, I can not tell. Christ and Peter walked on the waters,2 therefore it is evident, that Christs body may be in compass of a little bread. This to be a most false argument, not only in true Divinity, but also in natural reason, is manifest. For had Christ or Peter a body, that both walked on the water, and walked not on the water at one time? Do the scriptures so teach, or is there no such thing to be found in them? If not, then is not this like to you imagined presence of Christs body in the sacrament: which being granted according to your doctrine of transubstantiation, inferreth most necessarily, that Christs body at once is both compassed ⟨p. 387⟩in a little bread, which is contrary to the nature of a mans true body: and also is not compassed therein, as sitting in heaven, and having the natural properties of a true body, which cannot be brought within so narrow a compass as is your wafer cake. This is repugnant to scripture, to reason, to Gods ordinance, and therefore a most absurd and impossible thing is it, that Christs body should remain a true natural body, and yet at once be contained in so small a compass, as you teach. In that Christ and Peter walked on the water, no such inconvenience nor absurdity can be found, whether the waters were made by miracle firm as the ground, or the bodies were sustained by Gods power, that they sunk not. Christ might bear up him-self and Peter from sinking down, by his divine power, and change no natural property of his or Peters body: but Christs body can not be brought into that slender compass of your mathematical cake, without destruction of all properties incident unto a natural body. So then between these two is no likeness at all, as any man not blinded with Popish folly, and not wilfully ⟨p. 388⟩shutting his eyes against the clear light may manifestly perceive. Wherefore distrusting this argument, you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon, as in the authority of Epiphanius, who hath not any word at all to this purpose.
Your faults in framing arguments out of the text of scripture;1 are most incredible & monstrous, such as I gathered some out of your Annotations vpon the new testament, as your selues had deliuered them vnto vs. You cannot otherwise doe, but take vpon you some seelie defense of your fellowes Collections, whether with greater ignorance, or boldnes, I can not tell. Christ and Peter walked on the waters,2 therefore it is euident, that Christs bodie may be in compasse of a litle bread. This to be a most false argument, not onelie in true Diuinitie, but also in naturall reason, is manifest. For had Christ or Peter a bodie, that both walked on the water, and walked not on the water at one time? Doe the scriptures so teach, or is there no such thing to be found in them? If not, then is not this like to you imagined presence of Christs bodie in the sacrament: which being graunted according to your doctrine of transsubstantiation, inferreth moste necessarilie, that Christs bodie at once is both compassed ⟨p. 387⟩in a litle bread, which is contrarie to the nature of a mans true bodie: and also is not compassed therein, as sitting in heauen, and hauing the naturall properties of a true bodie, which cannot be brought within so narrowe a compasse as is your wafer cake. This is repugnant to scripture, to reason, to Gods ordinaunce, and therefore a moste absurde and impossible thing is it, that Christs bodie should remaine a true naturall bodie, and yet at once be contained in so small a compasse, as you teach. In that Christ and Peter walked on the water, no such inconuenience nor absurditie can be found, whether the waters were made by miracle firme as the ground, or the bodies were sustained by Gods power, that they suncke not. Christ might beare vp him-selfe and Peter from sincking downe, by his diuine power, and chaunge no naturall propertie of his or Peters bodie: but Christs bodie can not be brought into that slender compasse of your mathematicall cake, without destruction of all properties incident vnto a natural body. So then betweene these two is no likenes at all, as any man not blinded with Popish folly, and not wilfullie ⟨p. 388⟩shutting his eyes against the cleare light may manifestlie perceiue. Wherefore distrusting this argument, you protest that your note consisteth not so much thereupon, as in the authoritie of Epiphanius, whoe hath not anie worde at all to this purpose.
- 1pag. 497.
- 2Matt. 14.26.
