Besides, it doth utterly take away an essential property of Christs body: for if Christ, in respect of his humanity, be like unto us in all things, sin only excepted; and we know by the light of reason and understanding that God hath bestowed upon us; yea, by very experience, that our bodies are circumscriptible and tied to a place: it must ⟨p. 18⟩needs follow, that Christ in respect of his Manhood; or Christ, as he is Man, is and must be tied to a place, and not be in every place; as he must be, if these mens assertions be true; which is nothing else indeed, but utterly to destroy Christs body: which I prove against them thus. Whosoever taketh away the essential property of any thing, taketh away the thing it self: this Proposition is proved by this Maxim in Logic: If the definition of a thing, which chiefly consisteth of the essential property of every thing be taken away, then the thing defined it self, also falleth: As for example; If a reasonable living creature, which is the definition ⟨p. 19⟩of a man, be taken away, what shall become of man, or where shall he appear, which is the thing defined? But these men take away the essential property of a thing, to wit, of a body, which is to be circumscriptible or tied to a place; which is indeed an essential property of the body of man, and therefore of Christs body, as he is man. If any will deny this, it may easily be proved, both by the definition of a body, which is a quantity, that may be divided, according to the threefold measuring, received amongst men, that is, length, breadth, & thickness; and also by the description of a place, which is defined to be a nighness ⟨p. 20⟩or touching, of the thing containing, and the thing contained. The conclusion therefore is, that in taking away place from the body of Christ; which they do, whilst they place it in every place, whereas in the nature thereof, it can be but in one place at one time; they do utterly destroy the body or humanity of Christ; or at the least confound it so with the Godhead, as Eutyches did, that they make a confusion (whereas in all trueth and uprightness, there should remain a distinction) of the proprieties of either nature in his blessed person. But of this enough in this place, because it is somewhat philosophical, and ⟨p. 21⟩because also in the next section, we shall have occasion to deal with the like.
Besides, it doth vtterly take away an essentiall propertie of Christes body: for if Christ, in respect of his humanitie, be like vnto vs in all thinges, sinne onely excepted; and we know by the light of reason and vnderstanding that God hath bestowed vpon vs; yea, by verie experience, that our bodies are circumscriptible and tyed to a place: it must ⟨p. 18⟩needs follow, that Christ in respect of his Manhood; or Christ, as he is Man, is and must be tyed to a place, and not be in euery place; as he must be, if these mens assertions be true; which is nothing els indeed, but vtterly to destroy Christes body: which I proue against them thus. Whosoeuer taketh away the essentiall propertie of any thing, taketh away the thing it selfe: this Proposition is prooued by this Maxime in Logike: If the definition of a thing, which chiefly consisteth of the essentiall propertie of euerie thing be taken away, then the thing defined it selfe, also falleth: As for example; If a reasonable liuing creature, which is the definition ⟨p. 19⟩of a man, be taken away, what shall become of man, or where shall he appeare, which is the thing defined? But these men take away the essentiall propertie of a thing, to witte, of a body, which is to be circumscriptible or tyed to a place; which is indeed an essentiall propertie of the body of man, and therefore of Christes body, as he is man. If any will denie this, it may easily be prooued, both by the definition of a body, which is a quantitie, that may be deuided, according to the threefold measuring, receiued amongst men, that is, length, breadth, & thicknesse; and also by the description of a place, which is defined to be a nighnesse ⟨p. 20⟩or touching, of the thing containing, and the thing conteined. The conclusion therefore is, that in taking away place from the body of Christ; which they doe, whilest they place it in euerie place, whereas in the nature thereof, it can be but in one place at one time; they doe vtterly destroy the body or humanitie of Christ; or at the least confound it so with the Godhead, as Eutyches did, that they make a confusion (whereas in all trueth and vprightnesse, there should remaine a distinction) of the proprieties of either nature in his blessed person. But of this ynough in this place, because it is somewhat philosophicall, and ⟨p. 21⟩because also in the next •ection, we shall haue occasion to deale with the like.
