Reader
Two Sermons and The Lords Supper · Theodore Beza

Two Sermons and The Lords Supper, Sermon 2

THE SECOND HOMILIE, or Sermon, made the eight of Aprill. 1574.

THis is the ſum of the thinges that wee ſpake in the former Sermon, to wit,The ſumme of the former Sermon, conſiſting of foure particular points. that 1 al the knowledge of our ſaluation, did depend of the knowlege of Chriſt: and that wee 2 had in Chriſt, principally two things to be conſidered, that is to ſaye, ſuch as did concerne the knowledge of his perſon, and ſuch alſo as did concerne the knowledge of his offices. We hauehave heard, 3 that vnderunder the name or worde of perſon, there was meant Chriſt himſelfe: further, that that perſon conſiſted of two natures, that is, the godhead & the manhoode, both of theſe being ſo vnited and ioyned together, that the very natures themſelues, & their properties alſo remaining ſound and vnconfounded, Chriſt by that meanes is become, but one ſubſiſtence or being. For wee hauehave alreadie affirmed, the godhead ſo to hauehave aſſumed and taken the manhood vntounto it, that they are not now two perſōs, but two natures: of which two natures, the one, that is to ſay, the nature aſſumed or taken, is ſuſtained and vpheld, or (as I may ſo ſay) made a perſō, with the nature aſſuming, that is to ſay, the godhead: from 4 this wee proceeded, to ſpeake of ſuche things, as were attributed to, or ſpoken of either of the natures, or the whole perſon: and wee affirmed, that they were ſo to be vſed, as that we alwaies preſerued the vnion of the perſon, and continuallie auoided the confounding of the natures. For ſeeing theſe two natures,Synodus Chalcedonenſis. are as the Synode of Chalcedon ſaieth, vndiuidedlie, vnſeparablie, and vnconfoundedlie coupled together in the perſonall vnion: neceſſarie is it, that either of theſe natures, ſhould hauehave their owne proper thinges attributed vntounto them, and therfore, not communicated vntounto others. Wherfore ſome things attributed to the godhead, and ſomthings alſo attributed vntounto the manhood, were ſo proper and peculiar to the Godhead, and the manhoode, that thoſe that were attributed to the one, coulde not be ſpoken of the other without great impietie and vngodlineſſe. Notwithſtanding, by reaſon of the perſonal vnion (excepting alwaies that which is attributed to the whole perſon, and belongeth to both natures, as when Chriſt is called the mediator, and ſuch like) ſuch things as are proper to the godhead, and therefore as wee hauehave ſaid can neuer be ſpoken of the manhoode) are yet notwithſtanding attributed to Chriſt as man: and againe, ſuche things as are proper to man, are ſpoken, and that rightlie of God, but neuer, or at no hand of the godhead. The reaſon is, becauſe that the ſubſiſtence or being is denominated euen in the concret of one of the natures onelie. So by the Sonne of GOD, wee doo many times vnderſtand,1. Timoth. 3.16. not onelyonly the godhead of the ſonne by it ſelfe, but Chriſt manifeſted in the fleſhe. And by the GOD of glorie wee meane GOD become or made man: and like wiſe by ſonne of man, we meane man aſſumed or taken of the eternall ſon of God.

Whereby it commeth to paſſe, that by reaſon of that perſonall vnion, ſome thinges in the concret, may bee ſaide of the whole perſon, which yet notwithſtanding in the abſtracte,1. Corinth. 2.8. doo agree to one of the natures onelie. So Saint Paule affyrmeth, that the GOD of glorie was crucified, which propoſition is not true touching whole Chriſt,One and the ſelfe-ſame propoſition true and vntrue in ſeuerall ſenſes. that is to ſay, if wee regarde or conſider Chriſt, as ſome whole matter, conſiſting of ſome particulars: but not true, if wee vnderſtand it of all or eueryevery thing belonging to Chriſt, that is to ſaye, if wee ſeuerally and diſtinctlye conſider his ſeuerall natures, becauſe the name of the GOD of glorie, dooth in the abſtract agree or belong, to the onelie godhead. Wherefore this propoſition is true in the ſenſe as before, whereas otherwiſe it is a wicked and an vngodlie thing to ſay, that the godhead was crucified. Likewiſe in the creede of the Apoſtles,Symbol. Apoſt. we ſay, that wee beleeue in Ieſus Chriſt the onelyonly Sonne of God, conceiued, borne, ſuffered, &c: all which are truely and chriſtianly ſpoken. And why ſo? Becauſe that by the name of the Sonne of God in the councell, we meane not God, the word, by himſelfe alone, but GOD manifeſted in the fleſh. So the Sonne of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heauen:Iohn. 3.13. the reaſon is, becauſe he that is man, is God alſo: and yet the manhoode of chriſt was at that time no where elſe,Actes 1.11. but on earth, euen as nowe alſo chriſts fleſh being taken vp intoMatth. 28.20. heauen, and therefore abſent from vsus, that Sonne of man, is yet notwithſtanding preſent with vsus, becauſe the ſame chriſt is that true GOD,Iſaiah 66.1. Actes 7.48. whome neither heauen nor earth can containe. Wherefore, as theſe propoſitions are falſe, the Godhead is the manhoode, or the manhoode is the godhead: ſo theſe are true: This man is God, and GOD, the worde, is man. Nowe then, if man be truely ſaide to be God, by reaſon of the perſonall vnion, it followeth therevppon, that thinges attributed to the manhoode may rightlie be attributed to GOD: and on the other ſide, that things attributed to the Godhead may rightly be attributed to, or ſpoken of chriſt, man. But let vsus now come to ye other part of the knowledge that concerneth our ſaluation, that is, to chriſtes office. This office is declared in his name:Matth. 1.21. for he is Ieſus, that is to ſay, a Sauiour, becauſe God the father hath therefore giuen him vntounto vsus, that hee might ſaue vsus, to wit, from our ſinnes. Now hee ſaueth vsus, by iuſtifieng vsus, becauſe eternall life, doth of neceſſitie agree with iuſtice or righteouſnes. Wherefore hee giueth vsus life, in giuing vsus righteouſneſſe, and that of his meere and onelyonly grace, through the power and effectuall working of his holie ſpirit:One and the ſelfe-ſame power of God, appeareth in mans creation and mans reſtitution, ſauing that this latter, in my iudgement, and before men (though not before God) ſeeme to be the more excellent and hard worke. for euen that very ſelfe-ſame power of God, which laide it ſelfe open in the creation of man, muſt of neceſſity manifeſt it ſelfe alſo in reſtoring of man.

This is it that I meane: as God the father did freelie through his ſonne, togither with his almightie power, which is the holie-ghoſt, create man: ſo the ſelfe-ſame god, dooth by ſauing iuſtifie, and by iuſtifieng ſaue man, through his owne ſin fallen from grace, and yet made againe, or anewe, as it were, through his ſonne, in the powerfull working of the holie ſpirit. For the holy-ghoſt worketh in vsus that inſtrument which we cal faith, by which only we lay hold of chriſt after that we know him. Neither is this faith ſome ſimple or bare accident, but a habit, as they call it in the ſchooles, truelie grafted in vsus, not by nature, but by gods meere and free grace. But remember, I pray you, that by laying holde of Chriſt, I vnderſtand the apprehenſion or taking holde euen of Chriſt himſelfe.Two things principallie to be conſidered in Chriſt. For wee muſt conſider two things in Chriſt, that is to ſaie, hee himſelfe, god and man, and ſuch things as bee in him.A fit ſimilitude. For example (though it may be I confes, that the ſimilitude ſhall not agree in all points) if in a caſket or boxe I ſet before a man, treaſure, he that will hauehave the treaſure hidden or ſhutte vp therein, muſt of neceſſitie take the caſket or boxe it ſelfe:Coloſſ. 2.3. euen ſo there are in Chriſt, all thoſe treaſures of wiſedome and vnderſtanding: yea (and to ſpeake all in fewe wordes) all thoſe things, which are neceſſarily required to our ſaluation. Wherefore wee muſt of neceſſitie hauehave him, that ſo we may obtaine thoſe things that are in him, and by the meanes of them eternall life. But tell vsus, by what inſtrument wee doo take holde of him, as it were, by a certaine hand, that hee may wholie become ours, and wee his? Verilie by faith. Nowe the holie-ghoſt is hee, who going about to woorke in vsus, this excellent inſtrument of faith, vſeth for that purpoſe, the preachyng of the outwarde worde,Roman. 10.17. by which worde hee alone properlye woorketh inuiſiblye in vsus.

But that we may the better vnderſtand this point, lette vsus a little compare this naturall inſtrument of Faith, to witte, the outward worde with that ſupernaturall inſtrument, that is, the ſpirite.

Light of nature may ſomewhat helpe vsus to obtaine naturall things, but it can nothing further vsus in the vnderſtanding and beleeuing of heuenly things.The doctor or teacher by ſpeaking, teacheth his ſcholers that which he ſpeaketh. For ſpeech is the inſtrument and meane, whereby we lay open the meaning of our mindes one of vsus to an other, by vnderſtanding whereof, they to whome wee ſpeake, become ſkilfull in thoſe thinges that wee ſpeake: euen ſo it pleaſeth God to vſe his word written and preached, that ſo hee might teach vsus the knowledge of ſaluation, yet the way and order in both of theſe is maruellouſly diuers, if not altogether contrary. For whereas our minde by a certaine ingendred and natural power, is apt to conceiue & vnderſtand worldlie things (yea, and though it be true, that ſome men are more apte to learne than otherſome, yet all men generallie, are indued with facultie and power, to vnderſtand thoſe points, either by bookes, or the mouth of their teacher) when wee come to the true knowledge of God, and that his heuenlie ſecret touching our ſaluatiō, God muſt of neceſſitie vſe a far other power, in framing and diſpoſing our minds, that ſo our eares beeing purged, and our harts alſo, we may in our vnderſtanding comprehend theſe matters, and hauing comprehended them approoue of them, yea conſent vntounto them, and ſtay our ſelues vponupon them, or elſe we ſhall neuer attaine thereto. And this is that ſame inuiſible working power of the holie-ghoſt, which graueth into our heartes that which the minde perceiueth or vnderſtandeth: otherwiſe the paſtors and techers might ſpeak to deafe people, as it doth by too too common examples appeare at this day. Therfore the Apoſtle ſaieth,1. Corinth. 1.23. that the goſpell is an offenſe or ſtumbling blocke to the Iewes, and that it ſeemeth fooliſhneſſe vntounto the Gentiles. And in another place, that it is to ſome,2. Corinth. 2.16. the ſauor of life vntounto life, and to other-ſome, the ſauor of death vntounto death. But to whome is it the ſauor of life vntounto life? Euen vntounto ſuche as ſo perceiue and receiue it, that they admit, and ſubmit themſelues thereto. And yet it can not be vnderſtood and receiued, vnleſſe the holie-ghoſt doo by his powerfull grace alter and change vsus. Wherfore to them then it muſt bee the ſauor of death vntounto death that doo refuſe it, and caſt it farre from them. Neither is God, or the goſpell it ſelfe, cauſe of this neglect or contempt, but the verye corrupt nature of man:1. Corinth. 2.14. for the naturall manne perceiueth not the thinges of the ſpirite of God.

But to come to the matter: that word of GOD that ſoundeth into our eares, is an inſtrument ordained and directed by the Holie-ghoſt to teach vsus, that ſo wee maye vnderſtande ſuche thinges as are needefull to bee vnderſtoode for ſaluation, and may by true faith applie vntounto our ſelues ſuche thinges as wee vnderſtoode, and hauehave yeelded vntounto.The word by it ſelfe. And this ſpeeche of GOD talking ſo with vsus, is ſometimes naked, as it were, and ſimple, and ſometimes againe, is ſo decked and trimmed, as it were, with other things, that euen the matter it ſelfe, by reaſon of the rites and orders,The worde with the ſacraments annexed therto. annected to the ſpeech, ſeemeth after a ſort, not to be ſpoken, but to be doone. Examples of the naked or bare ſpeech, are theſe infinite promiſes of the goſpell: as when wee heare this, GOD ſo loued the worlde that hee gaue his onelie begotten Sonne, Iohn. 3.16.that whoſoeuer beleeueth in him ſhoulde not periſhe, but hauehave eternall life. So we reade, and daily heare in the church, the writings of the Prophets & Apoſtles, hauing exhortations, reprehenſions, and comforts adioyned to the ſame, according as good ſheepheards, do their duetie, publikely and priuately. And yet there are ſometimes ioyned to this word of GOD ſome ſignes, with certaine rites and orders, that ſo the ſpeeche may not onelie beate orders, but alſo the thinges that are looked vppon may come to our ſight. And theſe are thoſe thinges that the Latine writers call ſacraments:Auguſt. cont. Fauſt. Memictiae lib. 19 cap. 16. & habit. tom. 6. col. 349. and therefore Auguſtine alſo called them viſible words.

This verilye is certaine, that euen the moſt auntient Latine diuines did interprete that Greeke worde, Myſterie, by the Latine word Sacrament, and that not onelie in places where mention is made, of the rites and orders of the Sacraments of the church, as of Baptiſme and the Lords ſupper, but generally wher the queſtion is of ſuche thinges as are of themſelues cloſe & ſecret, and far remoued from common vſe.Epheſ. 1.…. So the calling of the Gentiles which the Apoſtle nameth a myſterie, is of the olde Latine interpreter turned,1. Timoth. 3.16. ſacrament. And our whole ſaluation, is the ſacrament of godlineſſe with him: and the coniunction of Chriſt, & his church, & not the marriage of man & wife, as commonlie thorough ignorance menne hauehave ſuppoſed, is with him a ſacrament likewiſe,Epheſ. 5.32. Apocal. 17.7. yea & in the reuelation he mentioneth the ſacrament of that vncleane harlot, and the beaſt that carried hir.

To be ſhort, nothing is more common amongeſt the Latine diuines, or commeth more often in their writings, than this worde, ſacrament. And yet the Latine church hath in a more ſecret and narrowe ſignification taken and vnderſtoode this terme,Sacrament, how it is vſed amongeſt vsus. ſacrament, namelie, for the ſignes and rites, which God hath adioyned to his promiſes, that ſo hee might the more fully ſeale vp in our hearts, the ſaluation that he hath reuealed vntounto vsus. And yet no other certainetie, ſo farre as I knowe, or can remember is this worde, myſterie, in the Apoſtles writings, vſed in that ſenſe or ſignification.

Verilie, the name or word, ſacrament, it ſelfe is amongeſt the Latiniſts of many ſignifications: for which doubtfulneſſe of the worde, we that nowe come in the laſt age of the worlde doo ſuſtaine manye and great ſmartes. The Apoſtle calleth circumciſion, a ſigne and a ſtate:Roman. 4 11. and (to ſpeake plainely, as the matter it ſelfe requireth) though I doo not willinglie depart from wordes in vſe, leaſt one inconuenience and miſchiefe might be heaped vppon an other, yet I hadde leiffer that the Latin authours and writers, had ſtill kept Paules worde.

But that we may at the length come to the purpoſe,What the lords ſupper is. let that rite or order of the Lordes ſupper bee a ſigne giuen vsus from GOD, whereby hee will hauehave teſtified and ſealed vp vntounto vsus, the communication or partaking of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. But becauſe eueryevery thing that is vſed, in, and about this holie banquet, is not of one ſort, maner, order, and reſpect, we are therefore to marke, that euen this worde, ſacrament,The word Sacrament, in the narrow ſignification taken three waies. and that in this more narrowe ſignification, is of the olde Latine diuines taken three manner of ways. For ſometimes they vnderſtand by ſacraments, the verie whole action, in which reſpect both baptiſme and the Lords ſupper it ſelfe alſo, are called ſacraments, that is to ſay, myſtical actions or outward rites, which doo repreſent to our vnderſtanding ſome other certaine thing. Somtimes againe not the whole action it ſelfe, but that which is vſed in that action, is ſo termed, as in baptiſme the water it ſelfe, & the ſprinckling or laying it on the party baptized: and in the Lords ſupper, bread & wine, with the rites and orders that chriſt himſelfe ordained. And this againe, by a double manner of ſpeech, for ſometimes vnderunder this worde, there are meant onelyonly the outward ſignes, as when Auguſtine affirmeth,Auguſt. that the wicked do eate Chriſt, as in reſpect of the ſacrament. And ſomtimes it is vſed for the ſignes, ioyned with the very thing it ſelfe ſignified, as when Irenaeus ſaith,Irenaeus. that the ſacrament conſiſteth of two things, one heauenlie, and the other earthlie: for hee calleth the heauenlie thing the body and bloud of chriſt, and the earthlie, the bread and the wine: and all that together hee nameth, the ſacrament. And this much concerning the word it ſelfe, or the name ſacrament. Let vsus now at the length come to the matter.

Sith nowe therefore, that euerie ſacrament is a ſigne, wee muſt needes put the word Sacrament in the predicament of relation or relatiues, as the logicians call them, that is, amongſt ſuch things as hauehave mutuall reſpectes one of them to an other. And ſith relation muſt needes be, amongeſt ſundrie thinges which hauehave mutuall reſpect one of them to an other, wee muſt therefore of neceſſitie confeſſe, that in the ſacraments there is a ſigne, and the thing ſignified. Neyther when I deliuer theſe 2 parts, which indeed do meete, or wherof in truth al ſacraments do conſiſt, do I ſhut out the word.Auguſt. Let the worde (ſaith Auguſtine) come vntounto the element, and it ſhal become a ſacrament. I do not therefore exclude or ſhut out the worde, which is, as it were, the life & ſoule of either of the parts, and to which the ſacraments themſelues, as wee hauehave ſaide before, are adioyned as ſeales. And thus farre foorth, euen they agree with vsus, which otherwiſe doo moſt of all diſſent from vsus. Wherefore lette vsus nowe ſee, which bee thoſe ſignes, and which bee thoſe thinges ſignified: for in this point we doo not all agree. Wee call water the ſigne in Baptiſme, and the thing ſignified we call Chriſts bloud, by the waſhing whereof (we hauing obtained forgiuenes of ſinnes, and being mortified in our fleſh) we are ſaued.

But concerning baptiſme I will not nowe ſay anie more. In the ſupper certainelie there are two ſignes, or rather, ſignes of two ſortes. For ſome of them are certaine materiall and ſubſtantiall ſignes: as for example, the bread and wine, other-ſome are actions and ſacramentall rites, which are not for all that vaine or ſuperfluous acts, but hauehave there certaine ſacramentall conſideratton and reſpect, from the Lordes inſtitution, of whiche point wee will ſpeake heereafter. I ſay then that in the Lordes ſupper, theſe are outward, materiall, viſible, and as you would ſay palpable ſignes, that God hath annected vntounto his word, euen the bread and wine.

This the Papiſtes denie, as who (after that they hauehave confeſſed, that the ſacraments doo conſiſt, of a ſigne, and a thing ſignified) doo yet notwithſtanding afterwardes take the bare accidents of bread and wine, as, coulour, forme, and ſuch like, for the ſignes themſelues: for they maintaine, that in the Lords ſupper there remaineth not, the ſubſtāce of bread and wine, but that that vaniſheth away, & that there cōmeth in the place thereof, the ſubſtance of the Lords bodie and bloud. Therefore in their iudgement, the ſignes ſhall be the accidents. And which I beſeech you? Forſooth whiteneſſe, roundnes, and redneſſe, if they conſecrate red wine, which accidents they doo by a new name call kind, ſhew, or forme.Auguſtine. But as Auguſtine rightlie teacheth: Vnleſſe there were a certeine analogie, proportion, and agreement betweene the things ſignified, & the ſignes themſelues, they could not be counted ſacraments. Now betweene accidents & ſubſtances there is no agreement, therefore the ſacraments, as they call them, ſhal not be ſacraments: for it behooueth the ſignes ſo to agree with the things ſignified, that they may repreſent to mēs minds that which they ſignifie. I will ſpeake ſomewhat more plainelie.A ſimilitude. If admoniſhing ſome one, I would hauehave him with his eies to behold, and with his mind to cō ceiue a man, I will not ſet before him the image of a horſſe, or of an oxe, to looke vponupon, becauſe that outward ſhape or forme of an horſſe, or of an oxe, cannot beget in his mind the conceit, portrature, or image of a man, although all theſe things, that is to ſay, man, horſſe, oxe, &c. are referred to one generall word or terme, to wit, liuing creature: much leſſe then ſhall the ſhape of an herbe, or forme of an horſſe, bring to my minde and memorie, the forme or ſhape of a man: and leaſt of all others ſhall thoſe accidents which are void of all ſubſtance, as whiteneſſe, redneſſe, roundneſſe, &c. call to my remembrance things that in deed are, to wit, the bodie & bloud of Chriſt.In that papiſts, make the accidents of the elements the ſignes of the ſacraments, there followeth three abſurdities therevpon. But it was the Lords purpoſe in his ſupper, to offer vntounto our mindes and thoughts the verie food of our ſoules, that is to ſay, Chriſtes bodie deliuered to death for vsus, and his bloud ſhed for the forgiuenes of our ſinnes, betweene which and thoſe accidents, there is no proportion and agreement, whereas yet notwithſtanding bread and wine, the verie food of our bodies in deed, doo moſt fitlie euen ſet before our verie eies almoſt, that ſame ſpirituall nouriſhment that we muſt hauehave from him.

And ſith no man can be fed by accidents, how can ſuch accidents then repreſent that ſame eternall food? Furthermore, though by the meanes of ſome accidents, materiall things may be ſet before our eies, yet all accidents doo not belong to, or agree with euerie matter: for manie both white and round things may be beheld, which ſhall not for all that repreſent a bodie: and who hath told them that the bread which Chriſt brake and gaue vntounto his diſciples, was white or round, in ſuch ſort as they bake it and make it? Therefore the true ſignes of Chriſtes bodie and bloud, are the verie bread, and the verie wine, which thing the apoſtle declareth,1. Corinth. 10.16 ſaieng: The bread which we breake, is the communion or partaking of the bodie of Chriſt: and the cup that we bleſſe is the partaking of the bloud of Chriſt. And that ſame conſubſtantiation or tranſubſtantiation, is a filthie forgerie and deuiſe of ſatan.

Now let vsus come to the thing ſignified: and firſt wee will declare,Enemies to truth are of two ſorts, that is, ignorant and malicious. what manner and kinde of ſignification this is that wee ſpeake of. For this is obiected againſt vsus, partlie by ſome that know not what is deliuered and taught in our churches, and partlie by other ſome that doo maliciouſlie ſlander vsus, that wee ſaie wee ſet out to be beheld in the ſacraments, as it were a vaine picture, or a certeine dead image, that maie ſtir vp in vsus the remembraunce of Chriſt, when yet notwithſtanding we are woont euerie where to beat vponupon this point, that by the ſacraments Chriſt is not ſignified vntounto vsus (as when we beholde Ceſars image & picture we are woont to remember Ceſar) and nothing beſide: for in the ſignes, hauing the word adioined vntounto them, we teach Chriſt and all his benefits to be ſo repreſented to vsus and our mindes, that he, togither with all his graces is giuen to vsus to be inioied of vsus, and in deed to be participated, but yet after a ſpirituall maner, and by faith. Wherefore this action is not vaine, neither are the ſignes, and the very rites thereof naked & emptie matters, ſith that which is ſignified, is both moſt truelie offered vntounto vsus by God himſelfe, and moſt effectuallie receiued of ſuch as beleeue. This kind of ſignification Bernard well declareth, by the ſimilitude of a ring which the bridegrome deliuereth vntounto the betrothed bride, to the end that ſo ſhe may not onelie thinke vponupon the bridegrome deliuering it, but that by this pledge of promiſe he might after a ſort deliuer himſelfe ouer vntounto hir alſo. And therfore Chriſt did not onelie ſay:Matth. 26.2…. This is my bodie, but alſo he added, Take ye, and eat ye. Mainteiners of the truth charged to be defacers of the ſacraments.Ye ſee brethren what we thinke and hold touching theſe myſteries: alſo what iniurie is offered vsus, when men ſay, that we doo euacuat & diſanull the ſacraments, and tranſforme them into certeine vaine ſpectakles and ſhewes of Chriſt that is abſent.Other mens malice muſt not hinder vsus from ſpeaking truth. Let vsus notwithſtanding as plainlie as poſſible we can declare, what that is which is ſo in outward ſignes, ſet before our minde to be looked into, that yet notwithſtanding it is a faithfull and beleeuing ſoule trulie exhibited and offered, to be partaken by faith. And what is that I ſay? Truelie the bodie and bloud of the Lord. But who teacheth vsus this, or ſo inſtructeth vsus? Euen Gods owne ſonne: for he ſaith: This (that is to ſay,Matth. 26.26.28. This bread) is my bodie. And this (that is to ſay, This wine conteined in this cup) is my bloud. By the way, I will put you in minde of one thing,Contention about wordes though it be not alwaies good, yet when it may cleere the truth, it may well be vſed. leaſt anie man might be offended becauſe I ſay not This is my bloud, in the maſculine gender, but This is my bloud, in the neuter gender, referring it either to the wine, which is the neuter gender in Latine; or to the cuppe, conteining the wine, which in Greeke is the neuter gender alſo: for though I louelove not to ſtriue about words, yet this point is well woorthie the marking. Certeinlie he that ſaith: Hic eſt ſanguis meus, in the maſculine gender, that is, This is my bloud, dooth point to, or ſhew foorth nothing but his bloud. But it is certeine, that as before Chriſt did not propound his bodie vntounto his diſciples without bread, ſo euen in this other part when Chriſt ſaid ſo, he would not ſet his bloud before his diſciples without wine. Therefore this Greeke Pronoune foreign being of the neuter gender, muſt needs be referred to the ſigne (that is to ſay foreign, the cup, which is therefore expreſlie put downe in Paule) concerning which, or of which, the bloud it ſelfe may be ſpoken: wherevpon this ariſeth, that the Greeke Pronoune foreign, this, cannot declare anie other matter or thing than this, that is to ſay, this thing or matter, which I hold in my hāds, to wit, the wine that is cōtained in this cup, which indeed cānot be expreſſed by this word, Hic, a Pronoune of the maſculine gender, as the meaneſt Grammarians may well and eaſilie perceiue.Chriſtes verie bodie & bloud is the matter o… thing ſignified in the Lords ſupper. But to returne to the matter: By theſe thinges you may perceiue, what we vnderſtand by the name or word of the thing it ſelfe, or by the terme trueth, ſacramentallie ſigifined, namelie the bodie & bloud of the Lord Ieſus.

Wherefore firſt of all we diſſent from the anabaptiſts,In the matter of the ſupper we agree not, either with the Anabaptiſts or ſacramentaries. who in ſted of the matter of the ſacrament ſignified, doo put downe I knowe not what ſhadow or figuratiue thing, as though it were ſome warlike cognizance, pledge, or watch-word, by which chriſtians might be diſcerned from ſuch as be no chriſtians.

Next we diſſent from them likewiſe, Or with ſuch as vnderſtand it onelie, concerning Chriſtes merits ſundered from Chriſt himſelfe.who for the matter of the Sacrament, eſtabliſhed Chriſtes force and power, as alſo his merites, but yet ſeuered from Chriſt himſelfe. For Chriſt ſaid not this is the merit of my bodie,Luke. 22.19.20. which is deliuered for you, but This is my bodie, and this is my bloud: neither is it without cauſe definitiuelie before hand added, which is deliuered for you, and which is ſhed for you. So that it could not more plainelie hauehave beene ſaid, that verie Chriſt himſelfe (whoſe bodie was giuen for vsus, and whoſe bloud was ſhed for vsus) is truelie and verilie giuen vsus in the ſupper, to be the food of eternal life to vsus. And therfore the matter of that ſacrament is in deed that verie bodie which he offered vp for vsus on the croſſe, and that bloud which he ſhed for the forgiueneſſe of our ſinnes: ſo far off are we from deeming or thinking of ſome figuratiue or typicall bodie, or ſome allegoricall bloud, as certeine moſt fond men (who doo not indeed well vnderſtand their owne wordes, minde, and opinion) are not aſhamed to ſpeake and write of vsus, that we ſo holde. Now I come to the third point of this diſcourſe: for firſt I hauehave ſpoken of the ſignes, and ſecondlie of the things ſignified.Two ſorts of people that in the ſacrament of the ſupper hauehave erred in and about the right coniunction of the ſignes, and the thing ſignified. Now we are to ſee in the third place, what is the knitting or ioining togither of the ſignes, and the thinges ſignified, wherein for the moſt part conſiſteth the whole determination of all this controuerſie touching the ſacraments. The papiſts hauehave altered the ioining togither of the ſignes, and the thing ſignified, into a tranſmutation or change one of them into another: than which, what can be more abſurd? For certeinlie, if the bread and the wine be in deede changed into the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, as they affirme, then we cannot chuſe but affirme alſo, that this is not to ioine the ſignes with the thinges ſignified, but to change the ſignes into the thinges themſelues, or elſe the ſignes vaniſhing away or periſhing, to put the thinges themſelues in their roome. But let theſe men go, as who in deed deſerue not anie confutation, their aſſertions be ſo abſurd and blockiſh. There are others, at this preſent no leſſe hard & ſharpe againſt vsus, than the verie papiſtes themſelues, who will hauehave the thing ſignified, that is to ſay, the verie bodie of Chriſt ſo to be ioined with or vnderunder, or in the bread, that in that verie place where that bread is, there muſt alſo be the bodie of Chriſt: which in like ſort is to be vnderſtood alſo, touching the wine and the bloud of Chriſt. If a man then ſhould demand, where is the verie bodie & bloud of Chriſt in the action of the ſupper:A groſſe abſurditie or two following conſubſtantiation. if wee will anſwere according to their opinion, we muſt ſay, that it is truelie and in deed in our hands, and in our mouth, and therfore certeinelie, vnleſſe it preſentlie vaniſh away, within this bodie of ours, with, in, or vnderunder the verie ſignes of the bread & the wine, being eaten and drunken. Now we will ſhew, and that by reaſons not fet from humane philoſophie (as our aduerſaries vntrulie ſay we vſe ſuch) but from the verie word of God it ſelfe,Two things to be handled: viz. the confutation of the aduerſaries, & the maintenance of the truth. that this conſubſtantiation (as we may trulie call it) is no leſſe abſurd and erronious than tranſubſtantiation, as alſo that that communion or partaking, which out of the pure word of God we propound and teach in our churches, is a moſt ſecret and diuine matter. Wherefore our iudgement is quite & cleane contrarie to either of thoſe opinions before rehearſed. To begin, we hold that ſuch things as are ſpoken of the ſacraments, muſt be vnderſtood ſacramentallie. For what I pray you is or can be more vpright than to hauehave all thinges ſpoken, rightlie vnderſtood and perceiued, as the nature of that matter will beare, whereof there is queſtion?A ſimilitude or two, explaning the point he hath in hand. Certeinelie ſuch thinges as the lawiers ſpeake touching the law, muſt be vnderſtood euen as they are vſed in that verie ſcience of the law: and we muſt needs giuegive the ſelfe ſame iudgement of all things and arts whatſoeuer. Such thinges therefore, as are taught and deliuered touching the ſacraments, muſt be ſacramentallie vnderſtood. What manner of coniunction then is the coniunction or knitting togither of the ſigne and the thing ſacramentallie ſignified? Verilie it is ſacramentall. The ſignes therfore, and the things are ioined togither by that relation or reſpect, which is betweene the ſignes and the thinges ſignified: which yet once againe, I doo moſt plainelie declare after this maner.

When we heare ſome man ſpeaking vntounto vsus in the toong we vnderſtand, the words that come to our eares and ſtrike them, doo verie liuelie repreſent that vntounto our mindes for the expreſſing and ſignification whereof they were vſed.Another ſimilitude. For example: as ſoone as we heare the word Rome, preſentlie wee thinke vponupon that citie. If a man name Ceſar or the emperour, Ceſar or the emperour preſenlie commeth to our memorie. The reaſon whereof verilie is that, that is well deliuered and taught in ſchooles: to wit, ſuch thinges as are in the voice or words are ſignes of the affections, that are in the ſoule or minde. There is the ſelfe ſame conſideration to be had of the ſacraments: for the ſacraments are nothing elſe, but viſible words, that is, repreſenting, through our eies vntounto our mindes, things ſignified, as words heard, doo by our eares conuey vnderſtanding to our minds likewiſe. Therfore theſe viſible ſacraments of bread & wine bring to paſſe, that when I ſee and receiue that bread, and that wine ioined with the word of God, I doo withall conceiue in my mind, and vnderſtand, that bodie that was giuen for me, and that bloud that was ſhed for me, as though I were led or carried euen vntounto the thing it ſelfe being preſent. And becauſe I am commanded not onelie to looke vponupon theſe ſignes with mine eies, but alſo to take them,Math. 26.26.27. eat them, drinke them, therefore dooth the faithfull minde euen lay hold of, and applie vntounto himſelfe thoſe things ſo ſignefied, as they are deliuered and offered. Touching which point we will largelie diſcourſe in the fourth place, to wit, when we ſhall come to handle this queſtion, how both the ſignes and the thinges ſignified are receiued of vsus: whereas now we onelie diſpute or ſpeake touching the ſacramentall coniunction of the ſignes themſelues,Two errours mainteined by the aduerſaries. with the thing ſignified. Such as are not content with this ſacramentall coniunction, fall into a double errour, not onelie that they doo in a a great and groſſe errour verilie eſtabliſh a real vnion of the ſignes with the things ſignified, of which we hauehave ſpoken before: but alſo they further adde this, that euen in that verie place whereſoeuer the ſignes are offered to ſuch as come to communicate, there is preſent the fleſh and the bloud of Chriſt, that is to ſay, they would hauehave vsus confeſſe that euen his verie humanitie or manhood is in deed preſent there, and is to be receiued or taken by bodily inſtruments. As for vsus, we affirme that Chriſt in reſpect of his manhood,The ſubſtance of that we are to know or beleeue, touching the coniunction of the ſignes with the things ſignified in the Lords ſupper. euen as when he was vponupon the earth, was no where elſe, but in that verie place where he was conuerſant, ſo now he is not anie where elſe, but aboue all heauens, into which he aſcended: and that therefore he is not now togither with the ſignes offered to the bodie, but togither with the ſignes truelie deliuered and giuen to the beleeuing ſoule, euen as by the word we heare it, and by the ſigne we ſee it. Now it remaineth that we doo by ſome reaſons fet from the word of GOD well wey and conſider whether they or we ſwarue from the truth.

The firſt reaſon. Rom. 1.3. Rom. 9.5. Galath. 4.4. Philip. 2.7. Hebr. 2.16. Iohn. 16.7.28. Matth. 28.20. Acts. 1.9.The holie ſcripture witneſſeth, that the ſonne of God did perſonallie take vntounto himſelfe a true and verie bodie. The ſelfe ſame ſcripture dooth attribute vntounto the fleſh of our ſauiour Chriſt aſſumed, and that both before and after the glorification thereof, ſuch things as doo plainelie prooue the truth of a naturall bodie, as that he came, that he went away, that he was ſometimes preſent, and ſometimes abſent. Theſe things then doo of neceſſitie follow the trueth of Chriſtes bodie, which if a man take from it, he muſt alſo needs take away the truth of the manhood of Chriſt, and ſo come at the length to the hereſie of the Marcionits or Dokits. Marcionits or Dokits, they were called Marcionits of one Marcion, whoſe principall error was this, that Chriſt did not appeare indeed, and ſuffer indeed, &c. vponupon the croſſe, but in phantaſie or ghoſtlike apparition. Concerning Dokitiae ſee homil. 1. before going. Tertullian wrote moſt learnedlie againſt this Marcion.But theſe things are manifeſtlie taken away, by their opinion, who ſay that Chriſtes fleſh is now alſo and that in deed and verilie preſent, both into the heauens, into which he aſcended, and in the earth likewiſe, and that alſo in all places, in which that bread and that wine is deliuered or giuen to ſuch as come to receiue it. I will ſay nothing of them that are not aſhamed to affirme that Chriſtes fleſh euen from the verie firſt moment of the perſonall vnion, was togither and in deed preſent, both in the crib, and in the heauen, yea euerie where preſent. To this firſt of all they anſwere:The aduerſaries obiection. that Chriſtes bodie cannot without great wickedneſſe, be made ſubiect to the law of nature, for that bodie that was taken into the vnitie of the perſon, hath receiued farre other vnmeaſurable giftes and graces.

But heere I beſeech you wey well what we anſwer:The anſwer. We confeſſe that there is great regard to be had of that ſame grace and gift of the perſonall vnion, by which wee cannot but confeſſe that the manhood of our ſauior Chriſt was ſo highly exalted, that onelie the Deitie or Godhead excepted (according to which he is euen greater than himſelfe) it hath atteined and gotten a name, which is aboue all names, that is to ſaye,Philip. 2.9.10. that all things created are ſubiected vntounto the ſame, yet for all that, that followeth not heerevpon, which theſe men coldlie ſuppoſe, or fondly imagine: for this is the queſtion now betweene vsus, whether Chriſtes manhood do in deed place it ſelfe euerie where, or in manie places togither at one time, to be receiued with our hands and mouth, and not what it hath obteined from another, or in reſpect of the other nature, to which it is perſonallie vnited: but rather whether this proprietie (which in deed is proper to the Godhead alone) be in the manhood, to wit, to be euerie where, or in diuers places at one and the ſelfe ſame ſeaſon.Schoole men faile manie times in terms, but now and then hit the matter. And this is that matter which the ſchoolemen hauehave by a barbarous word, if you reſpect terms, but not by an vnfit word, if men will wey the matter, called by the name of habitual grace. Now this difference being alreadie put downe, which ſkarſlie anie vnleſſe they be altogither moſt contentious, will denie, we ſay, that ſuch doo in deed euacuat Chriſt, or make him of no force, as denie Chriſtes fleſh,Though Chriſt man, be not euerie where, yet Chriſt God and man is euerie where. as in reſpect of another, that is to ſay, not in it ſelfe, but according as it is ioined to another, to wit, ſo farre foorth, as it is perſonallie vnited with the perſon of the word, to be truelie and in deed euerie where: much leſſe will wee denie him to be preſent in that place, whereſoeuer in the worlde his ſupper is adminiſtred. For whie ſhould wee denie, that concerning chriſts fleſh, which in a certaine meaſure hath place in al bodies: yea, euen there where ſom one whole thing, is become or made one, after an other ſort, than by perſonall vnion.A ſimilitude. A tree or a houſe is many times ſaide to be in a riuer, whereas yet notwithſtanding the vpper part, either of the one or of the other, appearing aboue the water or riuer, and being conſidered in it ſelfe, is indeed in the aire, and not in the water: in like ſort, I am ſaid to ſit in this ſeat or chaire, whereas yet notwithſtanding, I ſit, but in one part of my bodie onelie. Likewiſe I am ſaide to ſpeake, whereas onelie the tongue, conſidered, in, and by it ſelfe, ſpeaketh. The reaſon and trueth of theſe ſpeeches dependeth vponupon this, that a tree, a houſe, a man, &c: is one ſelfe-ſame whole thing, compacted and made of his ſeueral partes. For otherwiſe that coulde not be truely affirmed or ſaide, of two things in deede ſeparated and ſundered one of them from an other.Application of the ſimilitude. So a man may truely affirme whole chriſt to be euerie where, and therfore much more with the bread in the ſupper, and yet no otherwiſe, but ſo farre foorth as Chriſt is conſidered, as ſome one whole ſubſtance and beeing, and ſo alſo as the proprieties of the natures bee not by this meanes confounded. But the whole of Chriſte, that is to ſaye, euerye thing belonging to Chriſt, can not therfore for all that, bee ſayde to bee anye where elſe, than to bee conuerſant in one place, at one and the ſelfe-ſame time: for that can no more be ſpoken of Chriſts humanitie in it ſelfe (vnleſſe wee will with Eutyches and Brentius, Eutyches. Brentius.confounde the proprieties of either nature) than this my hande can bee ſaide to ſitte, or theſe my feete may be ſaid to ſpeake. If there be any that vnderſtande not theſe things, I beſeech them to learne to vnderſtande the ſame, and to hauehave more regarde and conſideration, both of themſelues, and of others, throgh whoſe ſides, they would, if they could deſtroy the truth it ſelfe.

He turneth that vponupon the aduerſaries which they obiected againſt the truth.To come to the point. They doo not ſpotle the manhoode of Chriſt, of that his infinite maieſtie, who teach that fleſhe of his to be the fleſh of the Sonne of God, but they rather that tranſfourme and chaunge him who is God and man in one perſon, and make him but to beare or cary, God or the godhead: neither yet do they ſpoile ye manhood of his maieſtie, or bring him backe vntounto the ſtate and condition of other men, which according to the grace that they call habituall (that is to ſaye, cleauing to the verie fleſh of Chriſt, as, if it were to his peculiar ſubiect or matter wherevnto it ſhoulde ſticke) doo acknowledge it to bee vnſpeakablye more high and excellent than all other thinges whatſoeuer wythout exception (excepting onelyonly the godhead of the worde, according to which he himſelfe is greater than himſelfe, as we ſaid before) but they indeede bring it to nothing, or into ſome image or ſigne in their owne conceipts at the leaſt, who, while they goe about to attribute ſupernaturall thinges vntounto him, attributing yet notwithſtanding vnnatural things to him, or thinges againſt nature, do of neceſſity deſtroy and ouerthrowe, euen mans nature it ſelfe: for that ceaſeth to be humane, which hauing loſt the eſſentiall proprieties thereof, muſt needes ceaſe to be ye which before it was. But we wil incounter with thē by an other reſon.

If this verilie be to diminiſh Chriſts glorie, and to debaſe his maieſtie, to affirme, that hee can not indeede be at one time in manie places, howe much more then muſt this be the debaſing of hym, to ſay, that hee was mortall, yea, that hee did indeede die? And yet wee ſee, that this is that, which the Apoſtle alleageth for the commendation of the moſt excellent louelove that the Sonne of GOD carried towardes vsus,Rom. 5, 6, 7, 8, &c Philip. 2.8. which was yet ſo muche the more great and excellent, by howe much he did the more debaſe himſelfe.

Nowe then, if the reall taking of all infirmities vppon himſelfe (ſinne onelie excepted) hath taken nothing at al from his glorie,Hebr, 4.15. or impaired and leſſened the ſame, how much leſſe hath this doone it, that he hath for euer taken, together with verie fleſh, the verie proprieties of fleſh, and that vnchangeably, and without confounding? But they obiect further,Another obiection. The anſweare thereto. that they meane not to aboliſh thoſe proprieties. Thē they muſt needes attribute contrarie thinges, to one and the ſelf-ſame ſubiect, & that altogether in one and the ſelf-ſame reſpect, to wit, to be circumſcribed and tied to a place, which is the naturall propertie of an inſtrumentall body,The aduerſaries abſurditie aſwel againſt reaſon as religion. and yet notwithſtanding, at one and the ſelf-ſame time to be both in heuen, and in innumerable places, or elſe, euerye where, if you will, in earth: and ſo one and the ſelfe-ſame fleſh ſhall hauehave a quantity ſette it, and alſo bee without quantitie, that is to ſay, ſhal be both a bodie, and not a bodie. And what is this elſe, I pray you, but to make eueryevery thing of anie thing, as wee commonlie ſay? but let vsus heare what they do yet further obiect.The third obiection. They will hauehave that time that went before the glorofieng of our ſauior Chriſts fleſh, to be diſtinguiſhed from that time, in which that his fleſhe was receiued vp into glorie. We grant it:An anſweare thereto taken from a double abſurditie. but withall we ſay, that if this reall coniunction of the fleſh with the bread, doo depend of the glorification of Chriſtes fleſhe, it can hauehave no place, in that firſt inſtitution of the ſupper, becauſe this fleſhe was not as then glorified, but rather moſt nie to debaſing & humbling. Beſides this fleſh is offred vntounto vsus at this preſent to be partaken by vsus, not as glorious or glorified,The transfiguration of Chriſt mentioned, Math. 17.2.3. &c feareth not the aduerſaries, but (that I may ſo ſpeake) euen, as it were, hanging vppon the croſſe. Againſt this exception, they oppoſe and ſet the miracle of Chriſtes tranſfiguration. But what agreement is there betwixt theſe two things? For of a truth, nothing vnnaturall or againſt nature fel out in ye tranſfiguration, neither was there any thing there done, that did deſtroy or ouerthrowe the eſſential proprieties of chriſts fleſh: euen as righteous men ſhal not therfore or then ceaſe to be very men, when they ſhall ſhine as the ſun,Daniel. 12.3. or brightnes of the firmament or ſtars. But to be eueryevery where, or in many places at one time, is a property ſo cōtrary to al things created (as which are indeed finite) that it belongeth onelyonly vntounto the godhead alone, becauſe that alone is infinite. To conclude, we do in one worde as it were,Glorification, and wherein it ſtandeth. anſweare thus. Glorification tooke not from Chriſts body a corporal or bodilie nature (that is to ſay, quantity or circumſcriptiblenes) but it aboliſhed the infirmitie & weaknes therof, which weaknes he for a time tooke vppon him. Nowe by the worde infirmity or weakneſſe, wee meane not any eſſential proprietie in chriſtes fleſh, but that onelyonly which ſin brought into mans nature, yet altogether without the ſpot or taint of ſin, as it was in chriſt. This is that I meane: where Chriſts fleſh is ſaide to bee infirme and weake, before the glorification of it, that is not ſpoken in reſpect of the Godhead: to the which hee alwayes hath bin, is, and ſhall be inferior: but in conſideration of that great glory, into which afterwards that his fleſh was exalted, yet ſo that there muſt alwayes remaine ſafe and ſound (as I hauehave ſaid heretofore) thoſe proprieties, of which the very truth of the body it ſelfe conſiſteth: amongeſt which, quantity, and therfore circumſcriptiblenes obtaineth ſo excellent & notable a place,Cyrillus. that Cyrill feareth not to affirme, that God hymſelf could not poſſibly bee eueryevery where, if hee were partaker of quantity.They affirme Chriſtes bodie to be eueryevery where. He calleth them ſo, becauſe they ſet themſelues againſt nature and reaſon. Iohn. 20.27. Therfore theſe mē I mean both Vbiquitaries and Antiphiſitae, hauing opēly denied the quantity of Chriſts fleſh, muſt either gette them to Eutyches his tents, and take part with hym: or if out of the words of Chriſt (who after hys reſurrection, willeth ſome to beholde & feele him) they wil prooue, that he hath not put off the quantity of hys fleſhe, then they muſt ſhewe vsus, that Chriſtes fleſhe, accordyng to the quantity thereof, can be at one tyme euerye where, or in manye places, whych euen the godhead it ſelfe, if it hauehave quantitie, can not perfourme, as Cyrill openly and truly writeth, whoſe authoritie otherwiſe, theſe men doo moſt eſpeciallie abuſe: for this reall preſence of Chriſt in the ſacrament of the altar: yea, they muſt prooue, that the Angelles lied, when they ſaide:Matth. 28.6. Hee is riſen, hee is not heere. For whatſoeuer diſtinction they may vſe, if wee can ſhewe a place where Chriſtes fleſh is not, then wee are ſure it can not be eueryevery where: and if it can not bee euerye where, then neither can the whole fleſh it ſelfe be at one time, and together in manie places. Hence alſo it may appeare,Brentius and his followers. howe abſurde and vnreaſonable Brentius his opinion is, and thoſe that followe him,Philip. 2.6, 7. who attribute theſe wordes of the Apoſtle, The forme of God, and the forme of a ſeruant, to the onelyonly humanitie or manhood of Chriſt in it ſelfe. For they vnderſtand by the forme of God, that their owne forgerie and deuiſe of all maieſtie, and all preſence, as they call it, with which, as they ſaye, the fleſh of Chriſt was verily in it ſelfe indued from the very firſt moment of the perſonall vnion, which it pleaſed him for a time not to make manifeſt: and this is it they meane by the worde, humbling and abaſing. And the forme of a ſeruant they call that ſtate and condition,He confuteth Brentius, and ſuch as maintaine him, as vſurpe the place of the Philippians, or rather falſely interpreting it. in which it pleaſed him to remain, ſo often as he wold not vſe the forme of God. Very well ſaide ſurelie: if a man wil attribute to one ſubiect or matter, two eſſentiall forms, what ſhall he els doe, but confound one and two together, and make them both one? And what is that elſe, but to bee mad outright? Then it remaineth, that by this worde or terme, forme, theſe men vnderſtand, neyther the godhead it ſelfe, nor the manhood, but a diuers conditiō and ſtate of this his manhood, as which inwardly, & in it ſelfe, was beautified and adorned, with all the powerfull graces & effects of the godhead powred into the ſame, and yet that he did not alwaies manifeſt and diſcloſe them.

But if this be true,Two abſurdities or errours. we muſt learn to define the perſonal vnion, not by the effuſion or powring foorth of effectual graces, but of vertues rather. Moreouer, vnderſtand as large an effuſion and powring foorth of giftes and graces into the fleſh, as poſſibly a man can, I woulde faine ſee, or heare ſome that coulde tell me, how it ſhal not be a moſt open blaſphemie for a man to affirme, that the manhoode may by any meanes, wythout robberie be made equall to the godhead? What ſhall become of that ſentence ſo often repeated in the ancient Fathers and olde writers, to wit, that the Sonne as in reſpect of his fleſhe, is leſſe than the Father, and inferiour vntounto him, yea, and therefore leſſe than himſelfe, and inferiour vntounto him ſelfe, becauſe hee is, as in reſpect of his godhead coequall with his Father? Wherefore that interpretation is to bee refuſed as falſe, yea, as wholie and altogether ſauoring of the hereſie of Eutyches. An other obiection of the aduerſaries.They alleadge yet this alſo: The place (ſaye they) is not of the ſubſtaunce of a bodie: and that therefore the ſubſtaunce of the body is not aboliſhed, though place bee taken away from it.

The anſweare.Certainely it would greeue me to the heart, to beholde the maintainers of conſubſtantiation, to bee ſo driuen to their ſhiftes, that by propounding ſuch abſurde things, they ſhould giuegive themſelues ouer to be ſcorned of the moſt popiſh and groſe maintainers of Tranſubſtantiation (vponupon whoſe foundation, yet notwithſtanding they builde vp their owne conceipts:) ſauing that I ſee, euen thoſe very defenders of Tranſubſtantiation themſelues (who hauehave bin broght vp with the teats of that moſt filthie ſowe Sarbona) to be ſo thruſt to the wall in this point,The name of a college in Paris, where the popiſh diuines are maintained. that they ſuppoſed, that with this dirt, the truth might be ſo dawbed ouer,He very notably correcteth himſelfe. that it ſhoulde not lie open to eueryevery mans eie and ſight. What woonderfull impudencie and ſhameleſnes is this (beare wyth me brethren, and pardon me, O yee hearers this my moſt iuſt ſorrow and greefe) for men to deale ſo ſophiſtically and ſubtilly in Gods church, which is the ſchoole-houſe of trueth?The worde Bodie in authors referred to two predicaments, to wit ſubſtance and quantitie, but yet in diuers reſpects. Any man indued with reaſon can hardly be ignorant of this, that this worde bodie is ſomtimes referred to ſubſtance, and ſometimes to quantity. Therefore a bodie is ſometimes called, a corporall or bodilie ſubſtaunce, conſiſting of matter, forme, and ſubſtaunce: and ſometimes it is called that which conſiſteth of three dimenſions or meſurings, to wit, length, bredth, and depth. So in this queſtion ſomtimes wee conſider Chriſts bodie, as that ſame materiall, ſubſtantiall, viſible, and palpable thing, which Chriſt tooke vntounto him for our ſake: and after this ſorte verilie quantitie, as it is an accident, is not parte of that ſubſtaunce. And ſometimes againe, wee vſe this worde bodie, that ſo, that which is defined, by that three-fold quantitie, may be the better diſtinguiſhed and knowne,The aduerſaries muſt either conclude againſt reaſon, or elſe yeelde to the trueth. from that which is without quantitie. And after this manner verily, theſe men muſt either prooue, that the definition dooth not declare the ſubſtance of theſe thinges which are defined: or elſe they muſt with vsus confeſſe, that a bodie is nothing elſe, but that verye three-folde quantitie continue, as they call it, that is to ſay, ſuch a quantitie, as whoſe parts are ioined together in a common terme.

If this be once taken away, it cannot be denied, but that of neceſſitie chriſts true and very bodie muſt periſhe, whether wee conſider it, as it is glorified, or as it is ſet in weakneſſe: yea, Chriſt himſelfe ſhall be accuſed of lieng, who proueth the truth of his fleſh euen after his reſurrection, by thoſe inſeparable accidents, that is to ſay, his corporall or bodily quantity.

He paſſeth to an other diſcourſe touching the word Place.Hitherto wee hauehave ſpoken of the bodie, nowe let vsus ſee what may be ſaide touching the place. What if out of Auguſtines plaine and euident woordes wee ſhoulde ſaye: Take from bodies ſpace of places,Auguſtine. they ſhall be no where: and becauſe they ſhall be no where, they ſhall not bee at all? What will they ſay to this? That is true in other bodies will they ſay, but in Chriſts bodie not ſo, or, it agreeth not thereto. But I anſweare, that it dooth moſt fitlie agree to Chriſtes body, of the abſence of which from the earth, Auguſtine dooth moſt properlie reaſon in that Epiſtle.

And truly, if it were true, that chriſts body were in diuerſe reſpectes different from ours, then he could not be of the ſelfe ſame ſubſtaunce with vsus, and like vntounto vsus in all things (ſinne onelyonly excepted.Hebr. 4.15. He explaneth the queſtion.) I will adde yet ſomewhat more, that the matter may appeare more plaine, though by that which hath beene ſaide, it be euident enough. When wee affirme, that a place can not be ſundered or taken from a body, that is, from that thing, which conſiſteth of three dimenſions or meaſuſurings before mentioned (which thing the maintainers of conſubſtantiation do, whē they flee to thoſe ſame ſtarting holes of his omnipotencie or almightie power, which heereafter wee will God willing diſcouer) wee meane not by this woorde place,The word place conſidered after two ſortes. ſome peculiar ſpace, which by and by may be altered and changed, as when Chriſt departing from one place went to an other: for after this ſorte this or that place is ſo euidēt to the body, that by moſt light & eaſy motion, one being remoued or taken away, another ſuccedeth: but we cal a place that ſame condition or ſtate, of a true & very inſtrumentall body wherby it neceſſarily followeth, that wherſoeuer the thing it ſelfe is, it muſt be circumſcribed in that place, or tied therto, neither can it, while it is there be in any other place. This accident, though it be not the verie ſubſtance of the body, as in reſpect that ye bodie it ſelf is a ſubſtance, yet verilie as it is a quantity it formeth & frameth the body, and it is an inſeparable accident of the body, aſwell as of the ſubſtance. So that there is no man (I ſuppoſe) but hee vnderſtandeth how vaine and ſophiſticall that exception is. But (ſay they) Chriſts body walked vponupon the waters: therefore they do not preſently take away the truth of Chriſtes body,An other obiection with the anſwere therto. Math. 14.25, &c. that attribute vntounto it an extraordinary condition, or ſuch a ſtate as can not be declared. And who (I pray you) denieth this, or any part of it? The queſtion is not, whether Chriſt as in reſpect of his fleſh, and that in the time of his infirmitye and weaknes alſo, coulde accompliſh many things ouer and beſide the ordinary lawes of mans nature. But this is the queſtion,The ſtate of the queſtion in controuerſie. whether this doctrine concerning the reall preſence of Chriſtes very fleſhe in many, or all places at once, can ſtand wyth the truth of Chriſts fleſh, whether wee conſider it, after or before the glorification thereof.

Now we ſtoutly and ſafely deny that Chriſts fleſhe at any tyme, can be in many, or in all places at once, and wee ſaye, that it can not by anye neceſſary or fitte conſequence bee gathered, either from this hys walkyng vppon the waters, or in that hee entered into the place where hys diſciples were, the dores being ſhut, or in that hee aroſe againe, the ſtone of the Sepulchre or Toombe,Iohn. 20.19. Math. 28.2. Certain reaſons alledged for proofe of his aſſertion. not beeing remooued or rolled awaye by mannes handes. And of thys wee hauehave ſundrye reaſons: for firſte theſe myracles ſeeme rather to bee doone, in the waters themſelues, made harde and firme, not onelie vnderunder Chriſts feete, but vnderunder Peters alſo, than in Chriſts owne bodie, the like whereof alſo is to bee ſaide touching the wall and ſepulchre,Matth. 14.29. the heape or weight whereof did ſodainely yeeld vntounto the body of the creator. Moreouer, though we ſhold grant that they were to be ſeene in the very body of Chriſt, yet doth not the withholding of a bodily weight, or the withdrawing of it for a time, or elſe this thinneſſe, as a man woulde ſay, of a bodilie heape, either aboliſh a bodie it ſelfe (ſith it dooth at any hand, take away the quantitie of a body) or implie contradiction, as they are woont to ſay in the ſchooles. But we affirme, that a true and very bodie, can neither want quantity or circumſcriptibleneſſe, but it ſhal ceaſe to be a bodie, neither can it be at once in one place, as circumſcribed, and in an other place, as not circumſcribed, but that we muſt of neceſſitie conclude, both that it is a bodie, and that it is not a bodie, which are aſſertions meerelie contrarie. The ſumme of all theſe thinges is this, or tendeth to this ende: namelie, that this opinion of the reall conſubſtantiation of Chriſtes fleſh with bread and wine, is moſt falſe and vntrue, as by meanes whereof the trueth of Chriſtes fleſhe is vtterlie aboliſhed. Now againe,The ſecond reaſon againſt conſubſtantiation. See the firſt before, pag. 65. euen by this moſt weightie argument following, may this forgerie and deuiſe be confuted, namelie becauſe it plainlie and wholie ſtandeth vp againſt the analogie and proportion of faith, ſo little need, or iuſt cauſe hauehave the defendors thereof, to call vsus backe to the power and force of faith.Acts. 1.11. Marke. 16.19. The ſcripture witneſſeth in manie places, that Chriſtes fleſh aſcended vp aboue the heauens, and that there alſo at this day it remaineth, we may not therefore ſeeke for it in earth: otherwiſe it ſhould not be an aſcending, but a vaniſhing away for the time. Certeinlie,A generall rule no man can trulie be ſaid to come or go vp thither, where he now was, or to go away, deſcend, or be abſent from the place where he remaineth. Looke therefore in how manie places theſe things are ſpoken of Chriſt, according to his fleſh, and that without anie figuratiue kinde of ſpeech by ſo manie moſt ſtrong and inuincible teſtimonies, there is confirmed vntounto vsus the true taking away of the bodie of Chriſt from vsus, and alſo that reall dotage of the preſence of Chriſtes fleſh vponupon the earth, yt is to ſay, thys opinion which the Dokits & Marcionits mainteine ſufficientlie confuted.Of theſe ſee before, pag. 70. As for that that they vrge againſt vsus,An obiection anſwered. ſaieng: How abſurd is that, that Chriſtes fleſh is now in heauen and no where elſe? It is eaſilie anſwered, that we ſpeake no otherwiſe than Peter,Acts. 3.21. Acts. 1.11. yea than the angels themſelues hauehave ſpoken. And though they ſay further, that by this meanes we ſhut vp Chriſt, as it were in a priſon, where as yet notwithſtanding the right hand of God (that is to ſay, his heauenlie power and authoritie) whereat he ſitteth is euerie where. What for all this? Anſwer vsus this, and tell vsus whether that being on the earth, & abſent from heauen (for he had not aſcended thither where he was then preſent) or whether that being in the virgins wombe, or wrapped vp in ſwadling clothes, lieng in the crib, he was ſhut vp in priſon? Yea ſith euerie bodie is conteined in his owne place, yea & things without bodies, are yet notwithſtanding included in the proprietie of their nature (for onelie the Godhead is infinit) what can follow elſe of this their moſt abſurd argument and reaſon,Abſurditie in reaſon, by the aduerſaries argument. than that all things are full of priſons and priſoners? And though we ſhould ſay, that vnderunder ye termes of ſitting at the right hand,Philip. 2.9. there is meant the verie ſelfe ſame thing which the apoſtle ſimplie and without trope ſaith, that Chriſt (to wit as he is man) hath receiued, that is to ſay, a name aboue all names, yet it ſhould be no leſſe fond and abſurd, thervpon to gather and conclude the preſence of Chriſtes fleſh in euerie place,A ſimilitude. that if we would affirme that the bodie of ſome king is as large and wide, as the bounds of his kingdome are brode. But ſay they,Another obiection anſwered. Chriſt being preſent gouerneth all things. We anſwer, that is true, as he is God, and yet the perſon of Chriſt is not for al that rent in ſunder or diuided. For euen Chriſt man, being euerie where the Lord, is preſent alſo euerie where, much more in the ſupper,In what reſpect Chriſt is preſent euerie where. howbeit not as in reſpect of the manhood it ſelfe but as in regard of another, that is to ſay, as he is one perſon, not in himſelfe as in regard of his manhood, but in the verie nature of the Godhead it ſelfe, of which the humanitie was ſo aſſumed, that it is one ſubſiſtence or being togither with it, as a little while ago we declared. Therefore the man Chriſt is in deed preſent, to wit, as he the ſelfe ſame is Chriſt God, and yet the manhood of Chriſt is not now in anie other place than in heauen.The third obiection anſwered. Epheſ. 4.10. But it is yet further obiected, that Chriſt went vp into heauen to fulfill all things. I grant it: wherevpon alſo I gather, that hee fulfilled not all things, till he aſcended, and that therefore the definition of the perſonall vnion taken from habituall grace, as they call it (of which we hauehave ſaid ſome what before) is falſe and fond. Yea, I gather this further, that if he did truelie and in deed aſcend, that that his fleſh was not in heauen before he aſcended thither, & that it ceaſeth to be on the earth, after that he aſcended from thenſe into heauen. But ſay they, he aſcended to fulfill or fill all things:The ſame obiection vrged, yet anſwered. therfore he filleth all things. We anſwer that he performed that, for which he aſcended, that is to ſay, he filled or fulfilled ye whole myſterie of our ſaluation, which the prophets foretold, and the full ſtate whereof (as in reſpect of that for the performance of which Chriſt came into the world) is finiſhed by Chriſts aſcenſion, as it had the beginning of it from his comming into the earth. But if we had rather refer theſe words (which alſo we may do) to the frute that followed his aſcenſion into heauen (by which, not as a ſeruant, but as a ſonne he tooke vponupon him, and entered into the kingdome and gouernment) then we ſhall perceiue, that he therefore aſcended,Iohn. 14.2… that ſending downe the Holie ghoſt, he might beſtow vponupon his church all neceſſarie gifts, for he aſcended that he might euen lade men with his graces,Epheſ. 4.8. and heape vp benefits, bleſſings, and gifts vponupon them, which ſeeing the apoſtle himſelfe ſpeaketh euen in ſo manie words as it were, what man in his right wit would beleeue them, that will tranſfer that to the verie perſon of Chriſt, which is ſpoken of the office of his kingdome, and the mightie and effectuall power thereof.The fourth obiection anſwered. Luke. 24.31. But they yet further ſay, he was taken out of their ſight, or he vaniſhed away from it. I grant it, but if from henſe they may gather, this their preſence in all places, or in manie places, or that which they call maieſtie euerie where (it is woonderfull and pitifull to behold, what monſtrous opinions in a verie ſhort ſpace hauehave ſprong vp) why may not we affirme the ſame likewiſe touching Philip?Acts. 8.39.40. for he ſuddenlie did ſo baniſh out of the Eunuches eies & ſight, that he was found afterward at Azolus. And what was woont ſometimes to be tide the prophets themſelues, appeareth by the example of Elias his diſciples.2. Kings. 2 3. The fift obiection. Acts. 7.35.36. An other place they obiect Stephan ſaw Chriſt, therefore he was on the earth. I denie that, for he being on earth, ſaw him ſet in heauen, as the holie hiſtorie declareth. And to what purpoſe I pray you, ſhould he ſee him in heauen, if he be at his ſide, on the earth? So that this miracle is to be conſidered, not in the verie bodie of Chriſt, but in Stephans eies. Neither did that rite and ceremonie of the church, vſed from all antiquitie, whereby men with a loud voice were admoniſhed to hauehave their hearts lifted vpward, ſaieng: Lift vp your hearts,The vſe of theſe words: Lift vp your hearts, in the celebration of the ſupper. tend to any other end, but to cauſe men to mount vp to heauen. For to what purpoſe ſhould that ſaieng, Lift vp, be vſed, if wee had that in our mouths and in our hands which we ſeeke for?The ſixt obiection anſwered. 1. Corinth. 15.8. Acts. 9, 4.5. &c. Auguſt. in pſal. 54. Againe: Chriſt was ſeene of Paule as he went to Damaſcus. Auguſtine ſhall anſwer this for vsus. He writing vponupon the fourth and fift pſalmes, ſaith: The head that was in heauen, cried alowd for the bodie that was in the earth. Much like vntounto this forme,Acts. 22.17. is that which they yet obiect, namelie that Paule ſaw the Lord, when he praid in the temple: therfore the Lord was in the verie temple, we confeſſe that he ſaw him, but in a viſion or trance. It was therfore a ſpirituall viſion, neither belongeth it anie whit at all to this preſent matter in hand: and yet though we ſay it was a ſpirituall viſion, we meane not that Paule ſaw any falſe or forged thing. Hitherto alſo we muſt refer other words of the ſame apoſtle, ſeeming …o tend to the ſame end, for they may receiue the ſame anſwer likewiſe.The laſt ſhift of the aduerſaries fullie anſwered. They run at the laſt to ye ſame ſtarting hole or ſhift (which I call by that name, as in reſpect of them that doo abuſe it) of the almightie power of Chriſt. And when we ſet againſt them this ſure ground, that God cannot performe ſomethings, then they throw out againſt vsus bitter outcries, as though that we were manifeſtlie and altogither blaſphemous and euill men. For mine owne part I would require this one thing of them,The authors requeſt to the aduerſaries, ſtanding vponupon two parts. that they would with an vpright mind ſuffer ſuch as amongſt vsus ſhall anſwer them, and that they would not be caried ſo friuolouſlie, yet weaklie (the Lord knoweth) againſt ſuch, as whoſe life (God be thanked for it) freeth them from all ſuſpition of blaſphemie.The firſt reaſon. If euerie one denie the power of God that ſaith there is ſomething which God cannot doo, then they certeinelie were blaſphemers, that ſaid, God deceiued, God lied, and that he could not die. Yea but they will ſay, that in as much as theſe things are not of anie part of his power, but rather imbecilities and wants, this is not to make GOD weake or feeble, but moſt mightie rather. And this certeinelie is the ſame, that long ago amongſt others,Theodoretus. Theodoret did anſwere the Eutychian heretiks, who defended this verie ſelfe ſame doctrine, by the verie ſelfe ſame reaſon. Let vsus ſtay heere then a while, and as we ſay in the prouerbe, pitch our ſtaffe for a ſeaſon. It is without all controuerſie or doubt, that God, who at the firſt made all things of nothing, is able vtterlie to turn all things vp ſide downe, yea euen with his verie becke or breath to aboliſh and deſtroy them all: and yet for all that he cannot effect or bring to paſſe this, that that which hath beene ſhould not be,Certeine things that God cannot doo. or that ſome one thing ſhould be and not be, at one & the ſelfe ſame time, or that it ſhould at one and the ſelfe ſame time, be ſuch a thing, and not ſuch a thing. The reaſon is becauſe of two contradictorie ſpeeches, one of them muſt of neceſſitie be falſe:Numbers. 23.19. but ſith he is God in deed, he cannot lie, and therefore he cannot either will or do ſuch things as are contradictorie contrary one of them to another. Wherefore he ſhall conuince GOD of lieng and himſelfe of follie, wooſoeuer he be, that will cloke and couer Gods almightie power with this deuiſe, by which Chriſtes bodie is circumſcriptible, and yet it ſhall in deed togither be preſent in manie places at once (which properlie belongeth to that onelie infinit nature) whereby alſo this is forged & framed, to wit, that the bodie is finite and infinite, great and not great, yea a bodie and not a bodie.The ſecond reaſon. And this I dare aduouch further: Whatſoeuer God would once hauehave without exception, to be vnchangeable, that cannot be changed by him, much leſſe can it be aboliſhed or doone away: the reaſon is, becauſe God cannot depart from himſelfe, or be contrarie or vnlike vntounto himſelfe. And I make this without all doubt or controuerſie, euen that ſuch is Chriſtes bodie, namelie, that it hath alwaies beene, & muſt of neceſſitie for euer be a verie or true bodie, and therefore alſo circumſcriptible and tied to a place.The third reaſon. Yea, this I ſay further, that God cannot be created by God, nor that a thing created can be turned into God: for if there were manie gods, he could not be God, to whō another created wer equall, neither could that created god (ſo called abuſiuelie) be God, becauſe that to be God, & to hauehave a beginning of time or in time, are merelie cōtradictorie things or ſpeeches.The concluſion of this point. Chriſts fleſh therfore could not become the Godhead, & therfore could it not be indued with ye incommunicable proprieties of ye Godhead, that is to ſay, with ſuch proprieties belonging to the Godhead, as cannot be cōmunicated to any other, but ye Godhead alone, amongſt which, this, to be infinit, & to be wholie & at one time euerie where, is not reckoned in the laſt place. Is this I pray you to deny Gods almightie power? or do we in this follow ye vngodlines of ye blaſphemous felow Plinie?Plinius, and his errors. for he denieth that God is able to beſtow immortalitie vponupon mortall people, or to call backe again ſuch as are dead: which is not only falſlie, but wickedly ſpoken alſo. The ſelfe ſame partie denieth that God is able to kill himſelfe, or to bring to paſſe,Truth may be propounded by ſome, though they perhaps doo not well vnderſtand the cauſe thereof. that he that hath liued, and is now dead ſhould not hauehave liued then when he liued, or that twiſe ten ſhould not be twentie. And heer in howſoeuer he fel fouly in the former, he hath not miſſed the truth, but rightlie denied theſe things to be in God: onelie heerein he did moſt beaſtlie ſlip,The cauſe why God cannot do ſome things, is not ſo much want of power in him, as becauſe he cannot or will not be found contrarie to his nature. that not knowing or beleeuing the nature of God, he would hauehave theſe things to be arguments and proofs of Gods imbecilitie and weakneſſe, wheras contrariwiſe, we know and beleeue, that he cannot therefore doo theſe things, becauſe he himſelfe cannot periſh, nor lie, nor be changed.

But loe we are now at the length come to them, who ſeeme moſt equall and vpright aboue all other, who alſo auoiding all other forgeries and deuiſes, doo ſtay themſelues onelie vponupon theſe wordes of Chriſts: This is my bodie, Such anſwered as vrge the bare words: This is my bodie.and This cup is my bloud: we muſt ſay they beleeue Chriſtes wordes though he ſpeake neuer ſo new and vnaccuſtomed matters, yea though he ſpeake things that our fleſh and ſences cannot beleeue. We grant all this. But what if they ſeeme not agreeable to the truth, and the analogie or proportion of faith? Verilie they are to be beleeued indeed, ſeeing that the ſonne of God is the truth it ſelfe, & yet theſe things or points muſt be ſo expounded,Two rules meet to be obſerued in expounding ſuch places, as ſeeme contrarie to truth. that they may altogither agree with the 1 reſt of the places of holie ſcripture, and the cheefe 2 groūds or heads of chriſtian religion: for whatſoeuer doth diſſent, though it be neuer ſo little from theſe rules, muſt of neceſſitie be falſe and vnſound. Now we hauehave heeretofore at large declared and prooued, that ſuch and ſo corrupt is that interpretation which eſtabliſheth either tranſubſtantiation, or a reall conſubſtantiation, of the ſignes and the things ſignified.Two chriſtian frutes ariſing by expounding the words of the ſupper ſacramentallie. But on the other ſide if we grant a ſacramentall being of the thing ſignified (which as it is true in other ſacraments, ſo alſo in this myſtery) then we ſhall preſerue 1 the truth of Chriſtes fleſh, and vphold 2 the analogie and proportion of faith. Wherefore this interpretation is to be admitted & receiued, as true, and well agreeing with right and ſound doctrine.An obiection anſwered. But ſay they, there is no place heere for a trope or figure: yea the verie plaine word is ſimplie to be obſerued. But who I beſeech you hath giuen you this rule ſpeciallie, ſith this is moſt manifeſt, yea and ſo vſuall alſo, that when they ſpeake of ſacraments (which alſo are themſelues figures) they ſpeake figuratiuelie. Neither thinke I that anie man can ſkarſlie bring foorth or allege an example of a contrarie ſpeech. You muſt therefore allege a cauſe, or render a reaſon, why that which is of force in other ſacraments ſhuld not likewiſe be of ſtrēgth and power in this ſacrament, or ſpeech touching the ſame. But let vsus ſome what more nighlie looke into the matter, and well wey all and euerie of the words of inſtitution. Firſt I demand, what the thing is pointed at, or painted out by this Pronoune demonſtratiue, Hoc, that is,The Pronounce Hoc, that is This, expounded. This. The papiſts anſwer, that it is an identicall propoſition, that is,The popiſh opinion declared and confuted. that one and the ſelfe ſame thing ſpeaketh of it ſelfe, and that therfore nothing is ſhewed forth, but euen the verie bodie it ſelfe: as if a man ſhould ſay: This thing is my bodie. But we ſay, that of neceſſitie that muſt be demonſtrated & ſhewed, which he hauing taken & broken, did deliuer vntounto his diſciples, to wit, bread: which thing alſo the apoſtle hath declared when hee ſaid: The bread which we breake. 1. Corinth. 10.16Is it not the cō municating of the bodie of Chriſt? And the word (rup) added in the other member or part of the inſtitution of the ſupper, doth plainlie prooue to all men that are not vtterlie contentious, that this word (this) is as much, as if Chriſt ſhuld ſay this bread. And heere I confeſſe there is no trope at all, the reaſon is becauſe it was needfull for vsus to hauehave the ſigne properlie & fitlie declared, that we might not be deceiued. But our aduerſaries (among whom alſo a trope is almoſt as odious as an hereſie) being demanded,Vbiquitaries, or conſubſtantiators, and thier opinions declared & confuted. What anſwer they? Verilie that vnderunder this Pronoune Hoc, that is, This, there is ſet out vntounto vsus, both ye bread and the bodie alſo, that is to ſay, both the ſigne & the thing ſignified,Their opinion is contrarie being in verie deed & eſſentiallie vnited togither, as they ſay.To ſcripture, But (as erewhile I ſaid) 1 Paule vſeth the onelie word bread, and certeine it is, that that was ſhewed, whiche Chriſte took & brake.To the nature of Chriſts body. Shall 2 we ſay, that he took and brake his owne bodie? Certeinelie if they will ſo affirme, this reall coniunction of the ſignes & the thing ſignified,To their owne opinions. ſhall 3 not depend vponupon the words of inſtitution, ſeeing that euen before that Chriſt tooke it and brake it, it was not bread onlie, but his bodie alſo. Wherefore they muſt of neceſſity confes, that theſe words: This is my bodie, & theſe againe: This bread is my bodie, meane and ſignifie all one thing: which not onlie all the ancient fathers do affirme, in innumerable places.Luther. Brentius. but Luther in manie places, and Brentius alſo, both in his booke called Syntagma, and in his catechiſme likewiſe,Seluerieus. Eberus. yea Seluericus & Eberus, doo as it were in ſo many words teſtifie alſo this truth. If yet notwithſtanding they will hauehave euen the bodie vnited to the bread, to be ſhewed out thereby. I anſwer they muſt of neceſſitie then admit the trope or figure Synecdoche, and that therefore the inſtitution of Chriſt, or the words of the inſtitution, can not be vnderſtood without a trope or figure.He proueth the aduerſaries to fall into that which they diſlike in others. And what man that is in his right wits ſhall they perſuade, that the word bodie can at one & the ſelfe ſame time be ſpoken of the bread & of the bodie without an other Synedoche alſo. And this you ſee what they hauehave gained, who thinke it, and publiſh it in others to be a horrible hereſie by a trope or figure to vnderſtand ye words of the ſupper, wheras they themſelues are inforced and found out, to make a double trope or figure. Now let vsus come to the word Eſt, The word Eſt, is expounded.that is to ſay, Is. Seeing that whatſoeuer is, is not after one ſort (for to be, hath place in all the predicaments) when theſe men from henſe gather thus, or doo after this ſort expound theſe words. This bread is Chriſts bodie, therfore it is eſſentiallie Chriſtes bodie, doo they not I beſeech you ſpeake as if they ſhould ſay: This is a liuing creature: therfore it is a man? And againe, doo they reaſon leſſe fondlie, when they gather thus: This bread is Chriſts bodie, therfore this bread is Chriſts bodie, not abſent but preſent? Now, whereas they ſay, that the word bodie, becauſe it is a ſubſtance, cannot be otherwiſe ſpoken or vttered, than ſubſtantiallie, I ſay they ſhould hauehave left this to the papiſts, who are therefore inforced to bring in their tranſubſtantiation of the bread, becauſe they ſay, that things ſundered or ſeparated one of them from another, could not be ſpoken one of another (& that therfore alſo this propoſitiō was falſe, the bread is the bodie) except they granted either that ye bread it ſelfe became nothing, or by changing were tourned into a ſubſtance of another ſort, to wit,Vbiquitaries, in vrging the ba…e letter, as abſurd as Papiſts at the leaſt. the ſubſtance of his body. Therfore theſe men alone do keep or vrge, & that moſt fondlie, the bare worde or letter. But theſe men of whom I now ſpeake, though in outward ſhewe and ſpeech, they refuſe all tropes and figures, in the expoſition of theſe words of the inſtitution, doo yet notwithſtanding ouer and beſides the two tropes aboue mentioned, that is to ſay,The aduerſaries by power of trueth conſtrained to fall into three tropes in the expoſition of a fewe words though otherwiſe the name be odious to them. the figure Synecdoche diuerſly vſed in deede bring in an other, and that ſame very ſtrange and woonderfull: when they will hauehave this ſpeech: this bread is my bodie, to ſignifie and meane as much, as if Chriſt ſhoulde hauehave ſaide: my bodie is verily preſent, wyth, or in, or vnderunder this bread. Concerning which, this is my minde, that whoſoeuer hee is that vſeth this laſt forme or manner of ſpeaking dooth not ſhew, what the bodie it ſelfe is, but rather declareth where the body is, and therefore vſeth the worde (is) not in the predicament of ſubſtance, but in the predicament of Site as they call it.

Nowe I come to ſpeake of that worde Body.The word Body handled. The thing that about this matter is laide vntounto our charge,The aduerſaries charge. is this, that inſtead of the true bodie of Chriſt, deliuered to death for vsus, wee ſubſtitute and place, I can not tell what typicall or figuratiue, or as it pleaſeth them to call it, fantaſticall bodie, when wee affirme that the bodie is ſpoken of the bread, not that the bread is the very bodie it ſelfe, but becauſe it is as a ſigne and pledge of that true body of his, which was giuen for vsus.

The anſwere thereto.But is this to aſcribe vntounto Chriſt, a fained body, as theſe men ſlaunder vsus? Or is it not rather rightly to declare and ſhew in what ſenſe, that true and onelie bodie may bee ſaide or ſpoken of the bread, to wit, not as it is bread, but in as much as it is a ſacrament of that his bodie? Therfore all theſe interpretations following, which that ſtincking ſlanderer Illyricus toſſeth too and fro,Illyricus and his ſlaunders. as if they were contrary one of them to an other, that is to ſaye: This bread ſacramentally ſignifieth, or ſacramentallye is Chriſtes bodie: or againe: This bread is the ſacrament of Chriſtes bodie, doo in deede and trueth, and altogether expreſſe but one and the ſelfe-ſame iudgement and matter.

Now that the worde bodie is in many places vſed, by all the old right beleeuing writers, for the verie ſigne of the bodie,All the auntient Fathers vſe the worde bodie, for the ſigne of the bodie. our aduerſaries muſt of neceſſitie whether they will or no, confeſſe, ſith that they feare not to affirme, that Chriſtes bodye is made, broken, conſumed, and why ſhoulde it not bee ſo likewiſe, when it is ſaide, to enter into the mouth? To be ſhort, what ſtrife and ſtubborneneſſe is this of theirs? They dare not denie the bread to be the ſacrament of Chriſtes body: and why then will they not allowe of this interpretation? Heere is the reaſon forſooth, becauſe they woulde hauehave it called the Sacrament of the bodie preſent.

Then ye controuerſie ſhal not be,The ſtate of the controuerſie or queſtion, is not about the interpretation of the wordes of inſtitution, but about the preſence of Chriſts bodie. yet touching the interpretation and meaning of theſe wordes of the inſtitution, in which there is no mention at all, neither of preſence nor abſence, but herein onelie ſhall they conſiſt, whether that bodie (of which that bread is ſaide to be the Sacrament) be abſent or preſent: which controuerſie, I can not ſo much as ſuppoſe howe theſe men ſhould determine out of theſe wordes This is my bodie.

The ſecond part of the Lords ſupper, to wit, the inſtitution of the cup, and what is meant thereby.Hitherto wee hauehave ſpoken of the firſt part of the Lords ſupper, to wit, the bread: but now let vsus come to the other part, to wit, the cuppe. But tell vsus (I pray you) what wee muſt vnderſtande by the woord cup? Verily, by their confeſſion, euen that which is contained in the cuppe, that is to ſay, the wine, and yet ouer and beſides that, the bloud of Chriſt, as they will needes hauehave it. The former of theſe I grant, to wit, that by the cuppe ſhould be meant, the wine contained in the cup: but the latter I denie, to wit, that that wine ſhould be in ſubſtance the very bloud of Chriſt, and this I do deny ſtanding vponupon the reaſons, which I hauehave before ſpoken and alleaged. But howſoeuer it be, whether there be meant therby this wine alone, or together with the wine, euen the bloud it ſelfe: yet needes muſt theſe deadly enimies of tropes and figures acknowledge one figure here, to wit, a Metonomia, of the thing containing for the thing contained, yea, and that ſame verie trope of the ſame figure Synecdoche, (which wee hauehave ſpoken of before) wherby it commeth to paſſe, that the wine and the bloud are ſaide to be the bloud.

Now then let them tel me how,See for the proofe of this Geneſis 17.9. without a crope or figure, that ſhall be counted the couenant it ſelfe, by meanes whereof, the couenant is eſtabliſhed? And yet this further I would gladly demaund of them, if the bare word or letter being ſo preciſely obſerued, that reall conſubſtantiation muſt of neceſſity enſue, how it can be that this ſhould not followe likewiſe, that the ſignes beeing not onelyonly diſtincted, but in very deede and truth ſeparated and ſundered alſo the body it ſelfe ſhoulde not likewiſe in deede bee ſeparated and ſundered from the bloud?Conſubſtantiation erronious, and al that is obiected for i… moſt weake. I many times thinking, and that earneſtly of this one matter, to wit, why diuers did ſo greatly vrge this ſame rule Conſubſtantiation, euen as if it were the principall point of all our religion: of a truth, nothing could come into my minde but that which was moſt eaſie to be confuted. As for ye that they ſay,An obiection. that vnles Chriſts very body and his very bloud be beleeued to be ſo preſent, that it may be receiued with the hands and with the mouth, or elſe the bread and the wine, ſhall be but emptie and void ſignes, I ſay it is of no force. In good ſooth, ſuppoſe yee that yee ſpeake the trueth? Belike then all the ſacraments that the Fathers had,The anſweare …ken from an abſurditie. before that Chriſts fleſh was indeede created were voide, and of no force. Their Sacraments (ſaith Auguſtine) were in ſignes diuers, but in matter equall. But in what matter were they equall? Euen in Chriſt, the only matter of the ſacraments: for that ſame ſpirituall word, that is, (as the ſelfe-ſame writer vponupon the 77. Auguſt. in pſa. 77pſalme expoundeth it) ſignifieng ſome ſpirituall thing, was Chriſt; & they did eat the ſame meat that we eat,1. Corint. 10.2.3. and did drinke the ſame drinke, to wit, Chriſt that was to be born, as we eat and drinke Chriſt alredy borne, who is a ſpirituall meat and drinke. How vntrue therefore is it that the ſignes are of no force, except the thing ſignified, being in deede alſo preſent bee coupled and ioyned with the ſigne?2 A ſecond reſon, ſtanding vponupon compariſon of the element of baptiſme, with the elements of the ſupper. Yea ſhall we ſay, that the water of Baptiſme, is an idle ſigne? & yet I neuer hard of any man that would ſay, that the bloud of Chriſt was indeede conſubſtantiated together wyth the wine. But againſt this they replie ſaieng: the reaſon or cauſe of that is, becauſe the Lord ſaide not, that that water was his bloud. Let vsus grant that, and yet in the meane while wee hauehave gained this, that ye ſacrament is not aboliſhed, or made of no force, though the ſigne bee in one place, and the thing ſignified thereby bee in an other, ſo that both of them be truly offered and giuen. And this much, or hitherto hauehave we ſpoken of this third point, that is to ſay, of the ſacramentall coniunction or ioyning of the ſigne with the thing ſignified.

Now the ſumme of this true and right beleeuing iudgement is this, to wit,The ſumme of that which hath bin ſaide, touching the ſacramental coniunction of the ſig… and the thing ſignified. that that is a ſacramentall coniunction, wherby it commeth to paſſe, that through gods ordinance, that which is ſignified by the ſignes vſed, though nowe it be neuer ſo farre from vsus (I meane Chriſt himſelfe, as in reſpect of his fleſh) is yet notwithſtanding, through the power of the holie ghoſt, but yet in ſuche a ſpirituall ſorte and manner, as wee ſhall declare heereafter, as truely and verily offered vntounto vsus, and giuen vsus, to be enioyed of vsus as verily as the ſignes themſelues are looked vponupon wyth the eies, touched with the handes and receiued and perceiued alſo wyth the mouth.

But let vsus now come at the length,The fourth or laſt part of this diſcourſe. to the fourth or laſt queſtion and points, to wit, what manner of taking or receiuing there is, both of the ſigns themſelues, and of the thing ſignified. Concerning the taking or receiuing of the ſigns, there is no controuerſie or doubt made of it,A ſyllogiſme. but that it is naturall and outward, becauſe it is manifeſtly and plainely perfourmed of all them that come vntounto it, by bodily inſtruments and meanes.The maior. But as for the things ſignified, to wit, that very fleſh of Chriſt, and that very bloud of his, they are ſo receiued and taken, euen as they are preſent and offered.The minor. But they are preſent and offered alſo, to our mind and faith, becauſe they are nowe (as wee hauehave ſaide) not on earth,The concluſion. but in heauen: and therefore they can not bee taken or receiued otherwiſe than by our minds and faith.Auguſtine. Auguſtine alſo ſpeaking well and rightly touching this point, after this manner: Why preporeſt thou thy mouth and bellie? This foode belongeth not to the bellie, but to the minde: Beleeue and thou haſt eaten: Wherevpon alſo this likewiſe followeth, that all that come to the Lordes table (as the ſame Auguſtine ſaith) receue the body of the lord,Auguſtine. that is to ſay, the ſacrament of the Lordes body, to wit, the bread vſed at page missing may be one, euen as thou and I are one

And in one worde, as you would ſay to finiſh the matter: if onelie the members of Chriſt are to be ſaued, then they muſt needes confeſſe, that wee are thorowe faith truelye grafted into Chriſt, and that euen before wee come to the ſupper: in ſo muche as, no manne can rightlye and orderlye come to the ſupper, which is not nowe already, both in baptiſme, and in the worde,That followeth not, that the aduerſaries fantaſie. become a member of Chriſte, and therefore is vnited with Chriſte him ſelfe. And yet it dooeth not heerevppon followe, that the inſtitution of the Supper is ſuperfluous, by which wee doo not indeede at the firſt puſhe, but yet notwithſtanding in proceſſe of time, doo growe vppe more and more in Chriſt. For him that wee doo alreadye poſſeſſe, muſt wee yet ſtill dayly ſeeke: and the more in number or ſtrength that the obiectes of our faith, ſo muche the more meete is, that that meane meaſure of faith that wee hauehave, beeing ſtirred vppe in vsus, it ſhoulde become ſo muche the more effectuall and powerfull.

For elſe what doo theſe men gather which wee may not, euen from the very firſt inſtitution and celebration of the Lords ſupper, as ſafly collect againſt the repetition or often adminiſtration of the ſame?A reaſon of the aſſertion. For certainely if we conclude, that the Lords ſupper is therfore ſuperfluous, becauſe we receiue nothing therein, but that which wee receiued before, in the worde and baptiſme, then this alſo will followe therevppon, that it is altogether vnprofitable, to repaire the ſecond or third time to the Lords ſupper, ſeeing that hee that commeth thither the ſeconde or ſundry times, receiueth nothing more than that very ſelfe-ſame thing, which before hee had laide holde of and receiued, than when he came firſt thereto.The ſecond obiection, with the anſwere therto. But they ſay, there is giuen to all that come thither, not bread alone, but that bread which is the ſacrament: otherwiſe Chriſts words ſhold be fruſtrate ſaying: This is my bodie. I grant all this, and yet I deny the conſequēce. Both things, that is, the ſigne, and the thing ſignified,As man ſtandeth of two parts: ſo accordingly two things are offered in the ſupper. is giuen or offered to all: therefore all receiue both. This hangeth not together: for two things are offered, one to the body, the other to the minde: the one is to bee taken holde of by the meane of the body, either to life or to death: the other is to bee apprehended by faith, and yet but to life onelie. Is it any maruell then that two thinges beeing to bee receiued by ſeuerall inſtrumentes and meanes, though perhappes they bee both offered in one action, as they ſaye, the one of them ſhould be receiued, by eueryevery one that bringeth the common inſtrument of the body: and the other apprehended but of them alone that bring wyth them that ſame ſpirituall and onelie fit inſtrument to apprehend Chriſt by? No verilye. And yet heere againe I pray you marke, howe great the ſtrength of trueth is.

Thoſe that contend ſo ſtiffely, and that alſo wythout any profit to the church about vnwoorthie communicants (for to what ende ſhoulde wee trauaile ſo muche about them?A diſtinction voide of reaſon and religion.) Doo notwithſtanding diſtinguiſh, betweene ſuch vnworthie perſons as liue not chriſtianlie enough, or otherwiſe are not ſufficiently prepared for receiuing of the ſupper (yet ſo as they feare not to affirme, that euen they alſo eate Chriſtes fleſhe, though it be to their deſtruction vnleſſe they repent) and ſuch as are altogether the wicked and vnbeleeuers, who receiue nothing but the bare ſignes.

But if that ſame reall Conſubſtantiation which they fantaſie bee true, then this will enſue therevpon, that not onelie all reaſonable creatures without exception, receuing the ſigns, but the very beaſts (let there bee reuerence in hearing this that I nowe ſay,A warie, but yet withall, a moſt neceſſarie caution. and let not any manne take it, as though I ſpake blaſphemouſly) eating that bread and drinking that wine, ſhall hauehave receiued alſo the fleſh and the bloud of Chriſt.An obiection anſwered. But they except further againſt this truth, that the vnworthy are ſaide to be guiltie of the Lordes body and bloud. Wee graunt that too, Is it becauſe they did vnwoorthily receiue the body and bloud?1. Corinth. 11.27 No in deede: But becauſe they did eate vnwoorthily of that bread, and drincke vnwoorthilye of that cuppe:1. Cor. 11.28, 29. or, becauſe they diſcerned not the Lordes body, for that ſame vnwoorthie vſing and receiuing of the holy ſignes or pledges redoundeth vntounto the contempt of the thing ſignified and offered,A fit ſimilitude. euen as he may iuſtly be accounted guiltie of ſome crime: yea, of treaſon if you will againſt the Emperoures Maieſtie, that in contempt or reprochfullye dooth violate the Emperours picture or image. Wee ſee then, that the wicked are become guiltye of the body and bloud of Chriſte, not that they hauehave receiued them (vnleſſe a man will take the body for the ſigne of the bodye, which is oftentimes vſed in the antient Fathers) but becauſe they hauehave thorowe their vnbeleefe reiected or refuſed them. For Chriſt him ſelfe can neuer be ſundered from that his quickening power,Chriſt and his graces are neuer ſundered. wherefore looke of whom ſoeuer hee is receiued (nowe indeede hee is receiued onelyonly of the beleeuers) they muſt of neceſſitye bee deliuered from eternall death,Iohn. 5.24. as he himſelf plainelie beareth witneſſe.

Nowe whereas theſe men except againſt this trueth,An obiection ſhortlie anſwered. that chriſt is deliuered to ſome for iudgement, and that thorowe the very fault of the hearers. We grant that alſo, but yet ſo, & in reſpect as Chriſt is thorowe their vnbeleefe refuſed, and caſt from them, and not receiued of them by faith.

Laſtly, whereas theſe men ſuppoſe,The laſt obiection, with the anſwere therto. that Chriſt him ſelfe can not bee truely partaken, vnleſſe hee be indeede apprehended both by the handes and mouth alſo,The laſt obiection, with the aunſweare thereto. and that therefore we holde a communicating not of Chriſt himſelfe, but of his efficacie and power, let vsus a little conſider this falſhoode, and weigh this ſlaunder. Firſt therefore we muſt knowe, that when we remoue a bodily eating, that ſo wee may eſtabliſhe a ſpirituall and myſticall eating: that both theſe muſt bee vnderſtoode not of the thing it ſelfe which is communicated or partaken, but of the maner of communicating or partaking. For neither did Chriſt himſelfe ſay:Luke 22.19. This is the merite or benefite of my death: but this is that my body, which is giuen for you: neyther doo wee ſuppoſe, that Chriſt himſelfe can be leſſe vnſkilfully ſeparated from his efficacie,A ſimilitude. when the queſtion is of Spirituall nouriſhement, than if a manne woulde denie, that we had neede to eate bread it ſelfe, and drincke wine it ſelfe, that ſo afterwardes wee might drawe or fetch bodily nouriſhment from the ſame.

But wee ſaye and affirme, that this manner of communicating or partaking, is not bodilie, neither yet that it can be perfourmed by bodilie inſtruments, or meanes, but altogether ſpirituall and myſticall, as which is performed by faith alone, which faith imbraceth that matter,Faith alone imbraceth the words and ſacraments & all the graces offered vsus therein. that is offered vntounto vsus in the word and ſacraments. But if they will denie that this can be performed, becauſe of ſuch a great diſtance of places, let them then ceaſe at the laſt to accuſe vsus of vngodlineſſe, as though we would either denie Gods almightie power, or giuegive ſentence touching this myſterie, by the rules of worldlie philoſophie. And yet we will not denie, but that this obiection may then hauehave ſome place,If abſurdities or errors be yeelded vntounto, then they will be infinit, & no meaſure of them. if by communicating or partaking we vnderſtand a reall applieng or mixture of Chriſtes bodie with ours, whether it be of the whole with the whole, or of the parts with the parts, that ſo the church might in deed be a bodie, as it were ſouldered and glewed togither of innumerable bodies of beleeuers, being indeed molten togither as it were with Chriſtes bodie. But fie vponupon this monſter, and let vsus learne alwaies to driue it far from vsus: for who perceiueth not that the bodie ariſing or flowing from this felowſhip or communicating and belonging altogether to a ſpirituall life, is myſticall? Wherfore we are truelie, but yet after a ſpirituall ſort and myſticallie, become one with Chriſt himſelfe through faith, that ſo from him there may flow into vsus true life.A ſimilitude. And euen as theſe our members being naturallie ioined with the ſoule, doo receiue from it ſence and moouing: ſo ſhould we after a ſpirituall and vndeclarable maner (for great is the myſterie of that ſpirituall mariage, that is betweene Chriſt and his church,Epheſ. 5.32. as the apoſtle largelie and lowdlie declareth) liue in Chriſt, being ledde and gouerned by his ſpirit, and he againe manifeſt and declare his powerfull working in vsus. Now tell me, is this the aboliſhing of that partaking that wee hauehave with Chriſt himſelfe, or doo we not rather make it a diuine and heauenlie partaking? But if with theſe men we would make it a cōmunicating with the mouth, then this partaking or communicating ſhould be no woonderful or excellent matter.We cannot approoue of a bodilie communicating or partaking with the mouth, becauſe that were to ſpoile our faith, and rob God of his almightie power & truth. For what I pray you is more naturall and vſuall, than if anie thing that is in deed preſent, be deliuered vsus to eat, we take it in our hands, and ſwallow it down thorow our mouth? But that we, though as now poore wretches we be placed on the earth, & not els where, ſhould notwithſtanding, truelie and in deed become the verie members of the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt himſelfe, who now according to his fleſh remaineth in heauen, and no where elſe, and ſhould fetch from thence the verie iuice in deed of eternall life, notwithſtanding that woonderfull great diſtance of place that is betweene him and vsus, this I ſay paſſeth all mans vnderſtanding, and is a moſt euident teſtimonie both of Gods truth, and alſo of his almightie power.

And let this ſuffice alſo for anſwer to theſe ſlanderers, who crie out, that wee tranſforme this holie myſterie into an imaginarie ghoſt or conceit, in that we do attribute all this wholie to our mindes & faith:If the aduerſaries concluſion be true, then there will inſue therevpon two groſſe errors. for if they doo trulie conclude this againſt vsus, what remaineth then but that we affirme likewiſe the baptiſme of chriſtians to be a certeine vaine fantaſie or apparition, and their ſaluation alſo to be in imagination, and not in truth,Two ſimilitudes conteining in them arguments from the leſſe to the more. who die before they can come to be preſent at, or partakers of the Lords ſupper? Now if naturall vnderſtanding it ſelfe and apprehenſion be ſo powerfull and effectuall, that we being holpē by theſe faculties become ſkilfull in ſo manie things, ſhall not faith that excellent gift of the Holie ghoſt, worke this in vsus, that wee ſhall through faith trulie and in deed apprehend & take hold of that verie thing, which God offereth vsus, to be receiued by faith, though it be neuer ſo far remooued from vsus? And ſith by the heat of the ſun, though it be neuer ſo far diſtant from vsus, the whole world is after a ſort quickened and made liuelie and ſtrong, ſhall not Chriſt be able, though his fleſh and his bloud remaine in heauen, ſo to become in deed our myſticall head, that he may powre into vsus the iuice of eternall life?The concluſion of all. But of theſe matters wee hauehave ſpoken thus far. My purpoſe was (brethren) largelie to diſcourſe of theſe points, becauſe of the ſlanders of certeine ilwillers, that ſo by this meanes, the true and ſound doctrine of our churches, being made knowne, none of them that repaire to this church ſhuld refuſe our aſſemblies, ſpeciallie the holie ſupper which we mind God willing, within few daies to adminiſter, but rather that we ſhould eueryevery one of vsus religiouſlie celebrate this holie banket, earneſtlie intreating the Lord to reſtreine troubleſome ſpirits, to confirme right beleeuers,A godlie praier. and (to be ſhort) to grant vsus all this grace, that being of one minde in him, we may in this world lead an innocent and vnblamable life, and at the laſt be receiued into eternall life and bleſſedneſſe, by our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: to whom with the Father, and the Holie ghoſt, be all praiſe, and glorie for euer and euer: So be it.