The Highway to Heaven, Text (4 of 5)

The Highway to Heaven · Text (4 of 5)

p. 216Yet I would not hauehave you take me ſo, It is oft to be receiued.as though my drift or meaning herein were eyther quite to diſcourage you from comming, or at leaſt to driue you not to come but verie ſeldome for feare of vnworthy comming. For I am not ignorant that Paules ſaying, As often as ye p. 217ſhall eate this breade and drinke this cup, ye ſhewe the Lordes death vntill he come. 1. Cor. 11.26. ſheweth that it ſtandes very well with the will and pleaſure of God, that men ſhould often be partakers thereof. And therefore it is well knowne it was the faſhion of the Primitiue Church vſually euerie Sabbaoth day to communicate. And there are great reaſons which he that would be accounted a Chriſtian indeede, and ſo to hauehave faith and knowledge fit for this buſineſſe, ſhould not dare to refuſe to receiue when he may. For to be inuited vntounto this table …o be bid to the mariage of the Kings Sonne: the refuſall to come whereunto vponupon what minde or pretence ſoeuer, we finde ſo dangerous Math. 22. that both deſtruction heere, and perpetuall excluſion on ſhutting from the mariage feaſt is threatned them, Verſ. 7. &c. And euerie one may ſee, it is to refuſe a moſt notable meanes to ſtrengthen our faith, wherof the ſtrongeſt in faith ſtand neede, or at leaſt it is plainely to bewray our ſelues to be ſuch, as for want of charitie or for ſome other grieuous ſinne that we know by our ſelues, we think not our ſelues fit to come. So to ſee our ſinnes and to iudge our ſelues for the ſame is not altogether to be condemned. p. 218But yet (dearely beloued) you muſt vnderſtand that if withall we be heartilie ſorie for theſe our ſinnes, and purpoſe vnfainedly amendment, and are willing according to the nature and qualitie of our ſinnes to giuegive vnfained teſtimonie thereof, eyther particularly and priuately if that be enough, or more publikly, if the caſe ſo require, that is no ſufficient reaſon to keepe vsus from this table. For the more we ſee our wants and imperfections, yea our faultes and ſinnes, if withall we rightly repent therof hauing knowledge & faith in Chriſt Ieſus right & ſound, though weake and imperfect; yet it is verie fit and neceſſarie that we come to this table, ſo to grow on in all theſe. For it is prepared for hungrie and thirſtie ſoules after Chriſt, and not for proud Phariſies that are puft vp with a conceit of their owne righteouſneſſe and worthineſſe. The impenitent and vnbeleeners eate not, nor drinke the bodie and blood of Chriſt at alIndeede they that are deſtitute of all ſound knowledge and faith, and ſhew it by their continuing and going on in errour and impietie, and hypocrites that hauehave none of the things they ſhould hauehave but in ſhew, are ſimplie vnworthie to be admitted; and they whenſoeuer they come, make themſelues guiltie of the bodie and blood of Chriſt, for refuſing it, or not hauing p. 219wherewith or whereby totake it, and ſo eate the bread, & drinke of the cup to their damnation. And my ſpeach tendes therefore eyther to prouoke ſuch to be repentant and to become new creatures in Chriſt Ieſus: or elſe, vntill indeed and trueth by examining of themſelues they finde themſelues to be in the faith, & ſo therby in Chriſt Ieſus, lamenting their miſerable ſtate and condition there whiles to abſtaine. For as the couenant belongs not to ſuch whiles they are ſuch; ſo no more doth the feale of the couenant. For them therefore by comming to ſnatch at the ſeale, hauing nothing to doe with the couenant, they as much as in them lies prophane the couenant and the author thereof. As therefore we ſee him worthily condemned of diſloyally to the Prince her ſelfe, that offers a manifeſt abuſage to her coyne, to her Seale, Scepter, crowne, ſeate royall, robes of eſtate, or picture: ſo we may be ſure, much more is he to be accounted guiltie of the bodie and blood of Chriſt, and ſo worthie of damnation, that not diſcerning aright that bread and wine are the Sacraments of the body & blood of Chriſt, with prophane handes mouth and heart receiues the ſame. The fooliſh ſonnes of p. 220Ely, and the armie of the Iſraelites abuſed but the Arke, which was a teſtimonie and ſigne of God amongſt his people, by fetching it into the campe when they fought againſt the Philiſtines — and we reade the wrath of the Lord bro… at both againſt them and the whole armie to their ſhamefull ouerthrow and deſtruction. 1. Sam. 4.4. &c. And ſo likewiſe when the Philiſtines prophaned it and abuſed it by ſetting it, after they had taken it, in the houſe of Dagon, euen therefore, 1. Sam. 5.2. &c. not onelyonly in the wrath of the Lord their idoll Dagon fell downe and brake his necke, and the inhabitantes of Aſhdod and of al the coaſtes thereof were miſerably thereupon ſmitten with Emerods, but alſo they coulde hauehave no reſt or eaſe vntill they reſtored it home againe to the people to whom it did appertaine. Yea when it was come home againe, what elſe was the cauſe why the Lord with ſudden death ſmote fiftie thouſand men of Bethſhemeſh as we reade he did, 1. Sam. 6.19. but that they to whom it did not appertaine to doe ſo, looked into it? And why did God manifeſt vntounto Dauid his diſlike of that fact of his, for the manner thereof, by ſtriking of Vzza with ſudden death for laying his hande to the p. 221Arke to ſtay it becauſe the oxen did ſhake it; though otherwiſe Dauid and Vzza had neuer ſo good meanings, the one in bringing of it home, and the other in ſo ſtaying it, but becauſe it was carted home, whereas the Leuites ſhould hauehave brought it, and he touched it that ſhould not? 2. Sam. 6.7. Wherefore once againe I ſay, not to driue you from the Lordes table but of a deſire that when you come you may come to your comfort, examine your ſelues before you come, as Paule hath bidden you 1. Cor. 13. whether you be in the faith or no, and whether Chriſt be in you or no. For vntill you be in him you are as dead men before God. For he is, The way, the trueth and the life, Iohn. 14.6. ſo that whoſoeuer liueth indeede before God, with Paule he may & muſt ſay; I liue, yet not I any more, but Chriſt liueth in me. Gal. 2.20. and our life is hid with Chriſt in God, and therefore, when Chriſt which is our life ſhall appeare, then ſhall we alſo appeare with him in glory. Collof. 3.2.4. Whereupon it followeth, as to eat and drinke for the ſuſtenance and maintenance of this bodie of ours, be actions of one aliue that hath alreadie bodie & ſoule conioyned and vnited: ſo none indeed can eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, & drinke p. 222his blood, but he that already liueth by faith in him as Paule ſpeaketh, Gal. 2.20. & ſo alreadie hath Chriſt dwelling in him. And therefore plainly toteach vsus thus much, ſaith Chriſt: Except ye eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his bloode, ye hauehave no life in you: and then thereupon immediately addeth; whoſoeuer eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloode hath eternall life, and a little after, hee that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me & I in him, Iohn. 6. Whereupon moſt plainly Saint Auguſtine in his 26. tract vponupon Iohn, inferreth thus: Hoc eſt ergo manducare illam eſcam, & illum biberepotum, &c. that is, This therfore is to eate that meate, & to drink that drink, to abide in Chriſt, and to hauehave Chriſt abide in thee. And by this (ſaith he) he that abideth not in Chriſt, & in whom Chriſt abideth not, without all doubt neither doth he ſpiritually eate his fleſh nor drink his blood, though carnally and viſibly, Premat dentibus Sacramentū corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti, He preſſe with his teeth the Sacrament of the bodie and blood of Chriſt: but rather he eateth and drinketh the Sacrament of ſo great a thing to his iudgement, becauſe beeing vncleane he preſumed to come to the Sacramentes of Chriſt. And therefore p. 223alſo moſt learnedly ſundrie times there in that tract he ſhewes, that Aliud eſt Saeramentum, aliud virtus Sacramenti, One thing is the Sacrament, and an other thing is the vertue therof: that it is he, that Chriſt ſaith ſhal not die but liue, that eateth of his fleſh; that pertaines to the vertue of the Sacrament, and not to the viſible Sacrament; which eates within and not without, which eates in heart not he whtch preſſeth with teeth. For he is moſt reſolute there alſo, that Resipſa, cuius eſt Sacramentum, eſt omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, qui eius particeps fuerit, &c. that is, That the thing of the Sacrament is to eueryevery man that is partaker therof to life, & to none to deſtruction: whereas immediately before he had yet written, that the Sacrament therof, De mē ſa dominica quibuſdā ſumitur ad vitam, quibuſdam ad exitium: that is, That the Sacrament thereof might of ſome from the table of the Lord be receiued to life, and of ſome to deſtruction. And moſt certaine is all this, howſoeuer ſome would darken all this cleare light, and wipe away all this cleare euidence, by ſaying that none elſe but the faithfull indeede can worthily eate the fleſh of Chriſt and drinke his bloode, which are the thinges of this Sacrament: p. 224but yet vnworthily they may. For though we read, 1. Cor. 11.27. of an vnworthy eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, that maketh them guiltie of the bodie and bloode of the Lord, as we hauehave heard: yet we neuer reade nor ſhall in all the Scriptures, of an vnworthy eating of his bodie and drinking of his bloode. For if there had beene any ſuch, Chriſt neyther could nor would hauehave ſaid ſo ſimplie abſolutely and confidently as he hath, Iohn. 6.54. and as we hauehave alreadie heard he did, Whoſoeuer eateth my fleſh, & drinketh my blood, hath eternall life, and I will raiſe him vp at the laſt day. No no, it is not the taking or feeding therupon that can hurtany, but the not doing ſo, that bringeth the daunger; eſpecially then when yet we would make a ſhowe to doe both, and yet indeede doe nothing leſſe. Chriſt is fed on, both God and man.But all this while I vrging the right commumcant in the vſe of this Sacrament, to ſeeke inwardly by faith to feede vponupon the body broken and bloode ſhed of Chriſt Ieſus himſelfe when outwardly he feedeth vponupon bread and wine, I would not be ſo taken as though my meaning were to teach, that faith heere were to reach no further then to the vniting of Chriſtes bare bodie and bloode, and the p. 225right communicant togither. For as he both in bodie and ſoule ſtandeth neede of him to be his Sauiour, ſo it is certaine, as Chriſt both God and man perfecte God and perfecte man in one perſon is the head and husband of his Church and the redeemer and Sauiour thereof: ſo here faith is to feed ſo vponupon his body broken & blood ſhed, as that withall it muſt ſtedfaſtly conceiue and beleeue that it was & is the body and blood of ſuch an one as was and is both very God and man, and yet but one perſon. For thence it cōmeth that the things done for vsus by his broken bodie and blood ſhed, though in number and time wherein they were done they were finite, are in the ſight of the heauenly Father of infinite value and dignitie (as once I ſaid before) to worke our perfect redemption and ſaluation, that they were done by ſuch a man that had not onelyonly a perfect bodie and ſoule of a man, and in them both was ſuch an one as it became vsus to hauehave, that was ſeperate from ſinners, Heb. 7.27. but alſo was and remaineth for euer a true & euerlaſting God and therefore was able thus to dignifie the workes done for vsus in his manhood. And to this end it is moſt heauenly and diuinely noted. Heb. 9. that the force that the offring p. 226that Chriſt made of himſelfe vponupon the croſſe for vsus, to purge our conſciences from dead workes to ſerue the liuing God, commeth and riſeth from hence, that then by his eternall Spirit, he offered himſelfe without fault to God for vsus. And though I am not ignorant that Chriſoſtome to very good purpoſe in his 46. Homilie vponupon Iohn, interpreting thoſe wordes of Chriſt, Iohn. 6.63. It is the ſpirit that quickneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing; the wordes that I ſpeake vntounto you are ſpirit and life: notes that they were ſpoken by Chriſt not to diſable his fleſh altogether from being profitable, becauſe ſo to thinke is abſurd; but to warne vsus that carnally we vnderſtand not his wordes, which by his interpretation there we doe if we take his wordes ſimplie as they ſound & thinke no otherwiſe of them: for that as he ſaith, all miſteries are to be conſidered with inward eies, that is, ſpiritually: yet I cannot but thinke with others alſo, that in ſo ſaying Chriſt meante not onelyonly to teach vsus that his wordes were not groſly and camally to betaken, that he had ſpoken of the eating of his fleſh and drinking of his bloode, (as the Capernaits and ſuch of his hearers that beleeued not, then tooke them) but ſpiritually (as his beleeuing p. 227diſciples, who notwithſtanding them, taried with him when the other murmured or departed by occaſion thereof) but that therin he had this further meaning and purpoſe to ſhew them that if his fleſh and blood were as they tooke them but the fleſh and bloode of a man, then they could not be indeed ſuch foode for their ſoules, as he had taught them to be; but beeing, as they were, the fleſh and blood of ſuch an one as withall was a ſpirit, and that an eternall creating Spirit euen very God, thence they might be ſure that they, rightly fed on by faith and the ſpirite, both could and would bring life. Thus therefore we teach and exhort all men in the vſe of this Sacrament, to feede vponupon the bodie broken and blood ſhed of our Chriſt and Sauiour. And yet thus we ſpeake with Chriſt, and according to the phraſe vſed in the inſtitution therof; becauſe as by Chriſt God and man, as by our onelyonly mediatour we come to the Father; ſo it hath pleaſed God in his word to reueale him vntounto vsus, that by his manhood and the workes done therin, we ſhould grow on to faith in his Godhead vnited thereunto and ſo ſhining & manifeſting it ſelfe vntounto vsus therin.

Thus then I hope by this time, euen by p. 228this plaine and ſhort declaration onelyonly of our faith and iudgement concerning the doctrine and nature of this Sacrament, The concluſion of this our doctrine.you may moſt clearely ſee and perceiue that we are wonderfully wronged and ſlandered, and that ſo alſo are all the Churches of our profeſſion, by our aduerſaries; whiles to diſcredit vsus withal, they would make men belecue that we make it but a naked Supper of bread and wine, and ſo ſeeke to feede our people therein but with bare ſignes and figures. For you may ſee and heare that moſt plainely and earneſtly we vrge our hearers therein to ſeeke to feed to their eternall ſaluation, of Chriſt Ieſus himſelfe both God and man: and ſo many other notable vſes thereof as you heare we teach, that euen in reſpect thereof all the names and titles that any ſound antiquitie hath honoured this Sacrament withal, may moſt iuſtly be giuen vntounto it as it is miniſtred and vſed by vsus. We finde it hath beene called the Supper of the Lord, the Table of the Lord, the Sacrament of his bodie and bloode, the Euchariſt, a Sacrifice, and Synaxis, and vſually with vsus it is called the Cōmuniō. And which of theſe is it not with vsus? It is the ſupper of the Lord becauſe as we teach, at the laſt ſupper he inſtuted it and p. 229it is his Table becauſe therin he feedeth his with himſelf: it is the Sacrament of his body & blood, becauſe to his it is a ſacred meanes of the Lord to nouriſh, ſtrengthen, and exerciſe their faith therein: it is the Euchariſt becauſe thereby we are ſo directly & forceably occaſioned as we are, to yeeld all heartie thankes vntounto God for the death and paſſion of Chriſt leſus, whereof it is ſo notable a memorial; and a Sacrifice euen therfore alſo it may be tearmed: & alſo Synaxis it is, becauſe it is an excellent bond of our aſſemblies and meetings together to receiue it and laſtly, worthily we may and doe call it the Communion, be cauſe it is a ſeale firſt of our communion with Chriſt, and then of one of vsus with an other in him. And yet for all this, though this moſt certainely be the generall doctrine held with one conſent by all the Churches that profeſſe the Goſpell with vsus; except of a fewe peeuiſh and wilfull Lutherans our aduerſaries, nor theſe neither will not be ſatisfied, but when we hauehave ſaid and done what we can, all is nothing with them that in this caſe we ſay or doe, vnleſſe we will with them by vertue of Chriſtes wordes ſpoken by him in the inſtitution heere of, hold ſuch a real preſence of Chriſtes bodie and blood p. 230in this Sacrament, as that by the mouthes of all commers thereunto and receiuers thereof, hauehave they true faith or no, his verie bodie and blood really be taken in and ſed vponupon. Which beeing a doctrine ſo directly contrarie to that which lutherto I hauehave taught you rouching our vnion and communion with Chriſt by faith and his ſpirit onelyonly, eſpecially, ſeeing alſo it is to be feared that a number hauehave bene ſo nouſled therein that the conceite they hauehave yet of the trueth thereof will hinder them, if it be not the better confuted, from taking any great good by al I hauehave ſaid hitherto: though otherwiſe heere I might well hauehave ended this matter and would, yet I muſt craue leaue of you to take ſome further paines for the better backing of that which I hauehave ſaid, to lay before you that which I thinke ſufficient for the iuſt confutation of this groſſe moutheating of Chriſt Ieſus by all communicantes whatſoeuer.The things that Lutherans & papiſtes hold in comon, for their groſſe reall preſence, confuted.

Heerein I ſhall hauehave to deale with two ſortes of aduerſaries: the one ſort where of are the Lutherans which I late ſpok of, who to that end interprete Chriſtes words ſpoken of the bread and wine, ſo, as that therevpon they inferre ſuch a Conſubſtantiation, p. 231that is, ſuch a beeing together of the verie bodie and blood of Chriſt with bread and wine in the vſe of this Sacrament, that whoſoeuerreceiues the one with his mouth, receiues the other: and the other ſort are our common aduerſaries the Papiſtes, who interprete the wordes of Chriſt ſo, as that by the force thereof they teach the bread and wine to be tranſubſtantiated, that is, to be turned into the bodie and bloode of Chriſt, as ſome of them hauehave held; or at leaſt thereby, as now moſt of them hold, ſo to be conueyed away that there remaines nothing but the accidents thereof, vnderunder which and together with which the bodie and bloode of Chriſt really are ſo certainly preſent, that eueryevery receiuer thereof takes into his mouth the verie bodie and bloode of Chriſt. Otherwiſe theſe two are at deadly warre one with another, and the former in moſt of the groundes and principles of Chriſtian Religion hold with vsus foundly againſt the other, and yet in this and for the maintenance of this their carnall and groſſe preſence, they are as vehement and bitter againſt vsus for the denying & oppugning thereof, as the other. Orderly therefore todeale with them both, whereas there are ſome thinges in this caſe common to p. 232them both, wherein they both holde alike againſt vsus; ſet vsus conſider of them & of the groundes thereof firſt, and afterwardes we will take a viewe of thoſe thinges and of their groundes alſo wherein they differ both betwixt themſelues and alſo from vsus: leaſt otherwiſe we ſhould be driuen tediouſly to repeate one thing often. By their bookes that they hauehave written & daily doe about this matter, it is cuident that they both holde a reall preſence of Chriſtes bodie and blood together with the outward elements in the vſe of this Sacrament: and likewiſe, that they both therfore teach, that together with the ſame eueryevery receiuer, hauehave he a right faith or no, receiues in by his mouth the verie real & true bodie & blood of Chriſt. And both of them ground both theſe their opinions, firſt of Chriſtes words vttered of the bread and wine; then of his almightineſſe: and laſtly of the ſtate now of his glorified bodie. In and about the outward elements when they come to be taken of the mouth of the receiuer, what they be and how long this their reall preſence of bodie and blood with them continues, they could neuer yet agree. For the maintainers of Conſubſtantiation plainely with vsus, notwithſtanding Chriſtes wordes p. 233and all their other grounds for their manner of his reall preſence, holde and teach that they remaine ſubſtantially bread and wine ſtill, and ſo are taken and eaten: and the other will hauehave after thoſe wordes are once pronounced, the ſubſtances of breade and wine to be gone quite, (though vntounto this day they coulde neuer agree to tell what was become of them) and the onelyonly accidentes thereof to ſupplie the roome alwaies after of the outward part of this Sacrament. The other hold their reall preſence continueth no longer, or at leaſt is tyed no longer to bread and wine, nor to any more of it then is receiued, and the miniſterie thereof laſteth. For Extra vſum, (as they ſpeake) that is, beſides the vſe, they hold neither the bread nor the wine that remaines, to be the bodie and bloode of Chriſt: whereas the other ſtiflie maintaine that all the hoſtes that they conſecrate are eueryevery one of them the bodie of Chriſt, and therefore they hang them vp, which they leaue, in a Pixe vnderunder a Canopie and honour and worſhip them as the verie bodies of their Sauiour. And for the wine they take careful order for that, bicauſe they cannot tell howe ſo well to preſerue and keepe that belike ſweete as the other; p. 234to conſecrate no more then their prieſt may quite and cleane ſup vp at that verie time. But to let theſe their diſagreeings alone, the things wherein they agree herein are nowe to be conſidered of: wherein, their manner of reall preſence of Chriſt offers it ſelfe firſt. Touching the which to begin withall, this I dare be bolde to ſay, for I knowe it to be moſt true how drunken ſoeuer they be with a conceit to the contrarie; it is contrarie to all doctrine taught vsus in the Scriptures, or in any ancient Father or Councell for ſix hundred yeeres after Chriſt at the leaſt. For with one conſent all theſe when they ſpeake of Chriſtes preſence in this Sacrament, it is reall preſence to the beleeuing communicant, for whom indeed he gaue his bodie and blood, that they ſpeake for, and that they ſpeake of: as for any ſuch reall prefence of his, eyther with or vnderunder bread and wine or vnderunder the accidentes thereof, as theſe men now plead for, neuer eyther any writer of any of the Canonical Scriptures, nor any ſound Father or Councel euer once dreamed off. And this reall & true preſence of Chriſt to the right receiuer we do not denie, but we vrge & teach more plainlie and comfortablie than anic of them doc. And p. 235this is it that bringeth inſeperablie with it eternal life & ſaluation in Chriſt; & as for this of theirs, the verie force of trueth & flat experience hauehave driuen them to confeſſe may be, and yet the receiuer thereby neuer the better but the worſe. What a vaine thing then is it for men to keepe ſuch a ſturre to the vexing and diſturbing of all Chriſtendome for a thing ſo fruitleſſe? Alas who is ſo ſimple but that he knoweth or may ſoone knowe that Chriſtes bodie was broken and his bloode ſhed for vsus men, and not for breade and wine; and therefore that neyther bread nor wine, are the thinges that hauehave to doe with his preſence nor yet their accidents, but onelyonly we men: and then that we may hauehave it ſufficiently to our ſaluation, who ſeeth not that it is the vaineſt thing in the world to ſtriue for it, for bread and wine and their accidentes? Further, ſeeing both of theſe doe confeſſe this to be a Sacrament wherof we now intreate, & neither of them yet could ſhew or euer went about it, that in any other Sacrament either of the olde or new Teſtament there was euer any ſuch real coniunction of the inward and ſpiritual part thereof with the outward, and yet al men know for all that, they were and are p. 236effectuall Sacramentes and ſeales of the deliuerie thereof to the right receiuer; what reaſon in the world can they hauehave why they ſhould not thinke that this likewiſe may be and alſo is a full and effectuall Sacrament to participate the bodie and bloode of Chriſt without any ſuch coupling of them and the outward elements therof, as for the defence of this their real preſence here they vrge? If that were heere neceſſarie, it ſhould be ſo eyther by the generall right of all Sacramentes, or by ſome ſpeciall right that may be ſhewed this hath therunto. But neither of theſe can they or ſhall they euer be able indeed to ſhew in this caſe. Further Chriſts owne ſitting viſibly ſeuered in place without any altering of his forme, or mouing of his place hauing vttered the words of the inſtitution, they being doubtleſſe as powrefull then as euer they were ſince or ſhalbe, to make him really to be preſent to and with the outward elements, doth moſt clearely ouerthrow this conceite. And for the next of hauing him ſo really heerewith preſent and conioyned that the receiuers thereof though they hauehave neyther faith nor good manners, yet receiue him alſo therwith, as I hauehave alreadie ſufficiently proued, it is both againſt Scripture and ſound antiquitie: p. 237and the former beeing ſo abſurd, whereupon it followeth and is built, as I hauehave nowe ſhewed it is, that muſt alſo therewith fall downe and be ouerthrowne. Yet for the further mabling of thee (welbeloued) to ſee yet more not onelyonly the vanitie and impietie thereof, vnderſtand that ſuch a kinde of preſence of Chriſt ſhakes all the articles touching the manhood of Chriſt, and in verie deed leades men moſt ſtrongly ſo to ſpoyle him of all the true properties of his manhood, that in effect it leadeth them and moſt forceably teacheth them to denie him indeede to be come into the fleſh, and to be the ſeede of the woman, of Abraham, Iſaac, and Iacob, of Iuda, Ieſſe, and Dauid, according to the ancient propheſies that are of the Meſſiah. And ſo for a bootleſſe eating of him and fruitleſſe, as they themſelues muſt needes confeſſe this mouth-eating of him to be, (for that they graunt, ouen to the worſt ſort of men that receiue the outward elements,) in the end they will leaue vsus no true Chriſt at all, eyther for vnbeleeuers or beleeuers to feede vponupon. I knowe their refuge and ſhift is to auoide this withall, to ſay that it is by miracle as they teach, and yet Chriſtes manhood and all p. 238the articles touching the ſame, true, ſound, and whole. Indeede any man may ſee that eyther they muſt ſay ſo, or elſe they can ſay nothing: and that in trueth and of abſolute neceſſitie it muſt be graunted to be the greateſt miracle that euer was wrought, if it be as they ſay, and yet all theſe things be vpheld ſound according to the true & ancient catholicke faith. For of both theſe it muſt needs follow that Chriſt at one and ſelfe ſame time hath a bodie viſible and inuiſible, palpable and impalpable, compaſſed in place and vncompaſſed; yea that he hath but one bodie, and yet many bodies, or that one multiplied into many; vnleſſe contrary to manifeſt Scripture they wildenie him in the heauens (Which ſhall containe him, as Peter ſaith, vntill the reſtitution of al thinges. Act. 3.21.) to hauehave, though a glorified bodie yet a true bodie; the contrarie whereof all the ancient Fathers, as they know well enough, with vsus againſt them hauehave taught. And they know though ſundrie of theſe Fathers of purpoſe hauehave written of the miracles of the Scripture, that yet they hauehave not once reckoned vp this of theirs amongſt them. Neither hauehave they any reaſon why to thinke that there is heere any ſuch. A myſterie and great myſtery p. 239we willingly acknowledg it to be, that in the right vſe of this Sacrament, Chriſt by his Spirit by the meanes of the faith of his, verily vnites himſelf vntounto his: but yet no miracle we count it, or cal it, becauſe it is Gods ordinary work in other Sacraments ſo to cō municate himſelfe to thoſe that rightly vſe them: and becauſe when he worketh a miracle there is ſome ſtraunge thing done beyond nature, that the verie ſenſes can iudge of; which we finde not heere. For they all with one conſent iudge them in reſpect of their ſubſtances, to be verie bread and wine ſtill in the mouthes of all receiuers. O but (ſay they) neyther ſenſe nor reaſon are to be conſulted withall in this caſe. Indeed I graunt they neuer are againſt any trueth certainely taught and warranted by the Scriptures; but when their iudgement concurres and conſents therewith, then it is verie lawfull and good to liſten thereunto: and ſo alwaies hauehave the godlie learned in all ages thought and taught. And therefore ſeeing both ſenſe and reaſon ſtriue againſt this their deuiſe, for the maintenance of Chriſtes true manhoode, and the right ſenſe of all the articles of our faith touching the ſame with vsus; euen thereby their cauſe p. 240hath a greater wound than they are euer able to cure againe. Beſides all this, whiles they thus teach without all warrant from Chriſt or hir word; they are compelled, leaſt otherwiſe they ſhoulde be inforced; moſt abſurdly to ſay that the wicked eate the bodie and blood of Chriſt to ſaluation; to ſeperate Chriſt and his ſauing graces the one from the other, whereas they cannot be ſeuered. For that muſt alwaies remaine an abſolute trueth, Whoſoeuer eateth his fleſh and drinketh his bloode, hath eternall life. Iohn. 6.54. and ſo that alſo, he that hath the Sonne hath life, and he that hath not the ſonne hath not life. Iohn. 5.12: A ſpirituall vnion and communion with him they ſhall both finde oft promiſed and ſpoken of, as I hauehave at large alreadie ſhewed: but a beeing of his bodie and bloode in the verie mouthes of all receiuers as they talke of, otherwiſe then Sacramentally, that is, when the outward ſacramentes or ſignes therof are there, they ſhall neuer finde ſo much as once ſpoken for in the ſcriptures, or in any ſound and ancient writer indeed. I cannot denie but that indeed the Capernaits, Iohn. 6. by miſconceiuing of Chriſtes ſpeeches there had of the eating of his fleſh and drinking of p. 241his blood, began to dreame that he meant ſome ſuch thing: but we hauehave heard that Chriſoſtome plainely ſheweth by the anſwere that he made them, that he had no ſuch meaning; his wordes were ſpiritually to be vnderſtood, and ſo ſhould giuelife and not otherwiſe. And Athanaſius vponupon theſe wordes, Whoſoeuer ſpeaketh a worde againſt the Sonne of man, writeth that withall then Chriſt put them in minde of his aſcenſion, as indeed he did Iohn. 6.62. to draw them from corporall and fleſhly vnderſtanding of his wordes. And therefore verie excellently hath Auguſtine, to preuent all ſuch conceits or murmuring, by occaſion of that doctrine of Chriſt, written of thoſe words of his whereat they ſo ſtumbled; in his third booke of chriſtian doctrine, Chap. 16. ſaying thus, That ſaying of Chriſt, except ye eate the fleſh of the Sonne of man & drinke his bloode, ye hauehave no life, &c. ſeemeth to commend an heinous thing and a wicked: and therefore it is a figure commaunding vsus to be partakers of Chriſtes paſſion, and to keepe in our mindes to our great comfort and profit that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for vsus. But I am not ignorant that theſe men would ſeeme to miſlike the Capernaits opinion as much as we; p. 242and that therefore they labour to put an infinite difference betwixt their fanſie of eating his fleſh and drinking his bloode, and this of theirs. For they imagined (ſay they) that then they ſhould feede vponupon them viſiblie, and by piece-meale as they did of other their vſuall meat and drinke: whereas they purpoſe them to be fed on inuiſibly and wholly. But alas what a poore difference is this, as though it were not as much againſt the lawe of God the law of all nations and nature alſo, knowing it, to eate and drinke mans fleſh and bloode vnſeene as ſeene, all at a morſell or at a ſup, as by many morſels and ſuppes? If yet they will needes vrge this their reall preſence and their moutheating really of Chriſt, how will they auoyde the daunger then, that that generall and vniuerſall propoſition of Chriſt will bringe them vntounto, ſaying as we reade he did Mat. 15.17: What ſoeuer entreth into the mouth goeth into the bellie, & is caſt out into the draught, &c? Euen this hath cauſed many both as learned as any of them and farre more ancient, to vnderſtand the eating of Chriſt to be by the mouth of the ſoule, faith; and not by the very mouth of the bodie. And they know, with one conſent the p. 243ancient Fathers teach that the wicked and vnbeleeuing whiles they remain ſuch, cannot eate the bodie and bloode of Chriſt: which they neither could nor would hauehave done, if they had knowne that there was any ſuch reall preſence, eyther by Tranſubſtantiation or Conſubſtantiation, as nowe theſe men teach. For eyther of theſe beeing graunted, the other how abſurd ſoeuer it be muſt follow thereupon. And therefore is it, becauſe they know that the Conſequent being abſurd the Antecedent frō whence it floweth muſt needs be ſo alſo, that theſe men are thus eager to defend this to be no abſurditie, that all that communicate, though they be neuer ſo bad and faithleſſe, eate the bodie and drinke the bloode of Chriſt really: for otherwiſe they know they cannot defend any longer their reall preſence as they do. For Iſee no cauſe elſe why they ſhould make ſo much a doe for perſons ſo vnworthie to hauehave ſuch care and paines taken for them.

But yet ſo wedded are theſe men vntounto their groundes that they hauehave builded this their fancie vponupon mentioned before, Chriſtes wordes proue not their purpoſe.that vnleſſe we can driue them frō thence, notwithſtanding all yet ſaid againſt it, it is to be feared that they wil think that they both p. 244may and ought to holde it ſtill. Wherefore, whereas firſt they ſeeme to thinke that the wordes of Chriſt are plaine and pregnant to prooue their kind of reall preſence, and mouth-eating conſequently of his bodie and bloode; doubtleſſe if with a ſingle eie and without any preiudicate opinion we conſider thereof, we ſhall ſoone ſee that it is nothing but peeuiſhneſſe & wilfulneſſe that makes them eyther ſo to ſay or thinke. That the wordes of Chriſt are moſt certaine and true in the ſenſe that he meant them when he vttered them, we neuer denied nor will; no nor yet we neuer gaue leaue vntounto our ſelues ſo much as once to doubt thereof. Wherefore if any of them perſwade any man otherwiſe of vsus, they doe vsus open and manifeſt wrong. Neither can we thinke ſo vncharitablie of them, but that we are perſwaded that they ſo likewiſe thinke of them. Heerein then is the difference and controuerſie betwixt them and vsus, whether we or they hit of the right ſenſe thereof. Which beeing the queſtion indeed as it is; for the determining herof eueryevery reaſonable man muſt needes confeſſe, that whoſe interpretation agrees beſt with the nature of the thing in hand, with the analogie of faith and good manners, with the p. 245reſt of the Scriptures and ſound antiquitie, that is to be taken beſt to agree with Chriſtes meaning, and therefore is the fenſe to be followed and preferred before all others. Nowe we interprete the wordes of Chriſt as ſpoken by a Metonymie, that is, by a figure of ſpeech whereby one thing beares the name of the other; as heere bread and wine we ſay doe, of the bodie broken and blood ſhed of Chriſt; becauſe the one both ſignifies and repreſentes the other vntounto vsus, and alſo aſſures vsus rightlie receiuing the one, that we are and ſhalbe partakers alſo of the other. Theſe men crie and vrge that the wordes are plaine and without any ſuch figure, and yet howſoeuer they therefore agree that they import a reall preſence to the outward clementes, and to the mouth of euerie receiuer (as we hauehave heard;) yet the one ſorte would hauehave them expounded to that end to inferre Conſubſtantiation, and the other a Tranſubſtantiation. Iudge therefore now I beſeech you by the foreſaid rules, whether theirs or ours be likeſt to be Chriſtes meaning. The matter in hande, when thoſe wordes were firſt vttered by him, was a Sacrament: and they know as wel as we, that in all other Sacramentes when p. 246eyther they were inſtituted by God, or afterwards ſpoken of by him; though the very like Phraſes for all the world were vſed of them, that are here by Chriſt of theſe: that yet vntounto this day neuer any of themſelues or others expounded them eyther as they doe theſe heere, or otherwiſe then we doe theſe. Circumciſion is called the Couenant, Gen. 17.10. the Lamb the Paſſeouer, Exod. 12.21. the rocke that the people of Iſrael dranke the water of in the wilderneſſe Chriſt. 1. Cor 10.4. the blood of their ſacrifices, the blood of the Couenant, Exod. 24.8. the Arke, the King of glorie and Iehouah. Pſal. 24.8.10. and Baptiſme is called the lauer or waſhing of our new birth, Tit. 3.5. And yet who euer expounded theſe phraſes eyther by Tranſubſtantiation or Conſubſtantiation, thereby really to make alwaies preſent to eueryevery of theſe outward elements the ſpirituall matter thereby ſignified and reſembled? yea, who euer vnderſtoode theſe otherwiſe, then to be as the wordes import, onelyonly by ſignification & repreſentation, and for the aſſurance of the right vſers of them, of the preſence to them of the thinges therby ſignified and repreſented ſpiritually? Why therfore ſhould Chriſt either ſpeake otherwiſe in the inſtituting of this, then had beene vſed in p. 247all other Sacraments; or ſpeaking but euen ſo, what reaſō is there why his ſpeach ſhould otherwiſe be vnderſtood heere then in all the reſt? To ſay that this hath a ſpecial and eſſentiall difference from all other Sacraments, and therefore though theſe phraſes be ſo to be taken in all other, yet they cannot ſo be in this: though when they ſay ſo they thinke they hauehave ſaid much to the purpoſe, yet indeed they hauehave ſaid nothing. For who knoweth not that a man hath an eſſential difference to diſtinguiſh him from all other creatures vnderunder the ſame General that he is? And yet that letteth not but that whatſoeuer belongs to the nature of the General is cōmon to him with al the reſt? For elſe he ſhould not be defined by his General. So if that which appertains to the nature of a Sacramēt in general, of which ſort this is that now we talk of, were not cōmon vntounto this with the reſt, it could not with thē be ſaid, to be a Sacramēt as it is. If therfore the outward elements bearing the names of the inward graces, neither inforce or impart any ſuch thing in any of the other, no reaſon is there why it ſhould in this. And ſurely the diſciples beeing ſo well acquainted with ſuch kind of phraſes in al the ſacramēts of the old Teſtament, therby were prepared quietly to heare Chriſt to vſe the like in this, p. 248and readily & rightly they vnderſtood him as in the other: & therfore neuer once were offended or amaſed at his ſpeach, or made any queſtioning with him eyther then or afterwards about the ſenſe therof. Whereas if they had taken them in any ſuch ſenſe, and had thought that they did import any ſuch matter as eyther of theſe ſortes of men imagine they did; they beeing ſo bold with him at other times alwaies in matters of farre leſſe importance and difficulty as to inquire his meaning, they woulde alſo doubtleſſe ſo hauehave done in this. Which thing in ſome ſort, and that with ſome further matter verie fit to croſſe theſe mens conceit, Chriſoſtome in his 83. Homilie vponupon Mathew hath noted ſaying, euen ſpeaking of the wordes of the inſtitution now in queſtion: Quomodo non turbati erant, cum hoc audiſſent? quia multa & magna de hoc antea diſſeruit, &c. that is, how came it to paſſe that they were not troubled (meaning his diſciples) when they heard this? becauſe many & weightie things he had diſcourſed of this before vntounto them. And a little after he noteth, that he himſelfe drunke thereof, leaſt hearing thoſe wordes they ſhoulde hauehave ſaid; what then doe we drinke blood and eate his fleſh? and therefore ſhoulde p. 249hauehave beene troubled. For when he firſt ſpoke hereof (ſaith he) many were offended onelyonly for his wordes: leaſt therefore heereby that alſo now ſhould hauehave chaunced, he did this firſt himſelf that ſo he might with a quiet minde induce them to the participation of theſe myſteries. Now as for the ſecond rule to examine our expoſition of theſe wordes by, that which I hauehave ſaid alreadie is both ſufficient to iuſtifie ours, and to condemne theirs. For in nothing ours can be ſaid to be contrarie, or but to carie any ſhew of contrarietie eyther to the doctrine of good manners or to the analogie of faith (if you ſhoulde examine from point to point our iudgement hereof and of the nature and vſe of the whole Sacrament as I hauehave expreſſed it;) and theirs, as I lately ſhewed in the confutation of their reall preſence, both in ſhewe and in trueth moſt directly croſſeth & contrarieth both. For hath not euen nature a loathing to the taking in by mouth and ſo ſwallowing of a whole man, fleſh, bloode, and bones at one morſell? And a man that can be ſo taken in and eaten of ſo many communicantes as be in worlde at one time, who can be perſwaded that he hath the true nature indeed of a man? And come to the third, p. 250that is, by the Scriptures themſelues to trie this matter by, and quickly we ſhal find by them our expoſition warranted, and this of theirs and the conſequents thereof confuted. For firſt, whereas they would countenance theirs againſt ours, by ſaying that Chriſtes words are plaine & without figure; looke but a little vponupon thē, and you ſhalbe inforced to confeſſe, & ſo they alſo wil they nil they, that he hath vſed in the inſtitutiō of this Sacrament, in his words ſundry figures. For firſt he ſaith of the one that it was his body giuen for thē, as Luke ſaith, or brokē for them, as Paule ſpeaketh: & then of the other, that it was his blood ſhed for them, as Mathew, Marke & Luke report his words; ſo ſpeaking of that which yet then was not done, as it is wel known, as though thē it had bene done, by an vſual figure in the Scriptures, vſing the time paſt or preſent for the time to come. Againe concerning the latter elemēt, Mathew ſaith that he ſaid it was his blood of the new Teſtament, and ſo doth Mark: Luke ſets down his words thus, This cup is the new Teſtament in my bloode; & ſo alſo doth Paule: wherin & wherby any man may ſee, that wilfully will not make himſelf blind, two figuratiue kind of ſpeeches beſids this that we ſtriue for. For here is the cup p. 251cōtaining, put for that which was therin cō tained: & whatſoeuer they would hauehave that to be, wine or his very blood; I am ſure they neither yet can or wil ſay that either the one or the other is the new Teſtamēt it ſelfe. Seing then it might ſtand with the nature of this Sacrament & Chriſts care & deſire to be therin vnderſtood to vſe the figurs; what letteth but that we may as lawfully thinke that he vſed the vſual Metonymie vſed in all other Sacraments, in giuing the names of body & blood to bread & wine, that were but repreſentatiōs & ſeales of our cōmunion with his body & blood, to our euerlaſting nouriſhment? This variety in theſe, in repeating & ſetting down the words of the inſtitution as may be ſene by this that I hauehave already noted, argues that they were not ſo ſuperſtitiouſly tied to a ſet ſort & number of words as theſe men imagine: yea that they, ſo they kept his very ſenſe, thought that it was lawful for them thus to ad or change a word or two tending onelyonly to explaine the ſame, hereby it is euident. For Pauls word Broken in ſteed of Lukes Giuen, ſhews how his body ſhould be giuen euen to be broken with ſorrows, with whippings, crowning with thorn & nailing as it was to the croſſe: & theſe two added by thē, not vſed by Mat. or Mar. ſerue p. 252to ſhew vsus what bodie of his it is, I meane in reſpect of what ſtate thereof it is, that heere by this Sacrament we are occaſioned to thinke vponupon it, and to feede on it: and by the other chaunge of their phraſe, for Blood of the new Teſtament, ſaying, it was the newe Teſtament in his bloode, moſt plainly we are taught, that therefore called heit the blood of the new Teſtament becauſe the new Teſtament was ratified and ſo ſtandeth by the ſhedding of that bloode to all beleeuers in him. But indeed though they would ſeeme to be men that make wonderfull great conſcience of the letter and wordes, as though it were ſacriledge to goe one iot from the ſound thereof: yet any man that lookes but with halfe an eye vponupon either of their interpretations which they ſtand vponupon to grounde their kinde of reall preſence by, ſhall ſoone perceiue that they are nothing the men they make ſhewe for. For is it all one eyther to ſay, together with this is my bodie and bloode, or vnderunder the accidentes heereof is my bodie and blood, and to ſay This is my bodie and bloode? And yet thus, when al is done, Chriſtes wordes muſt ſounde or elſe neither will there or can there be either the Lutherans Conſubſtantiation, or the p. 253popiſh Tranſubſtantiation brought in therby to vphold their fond reall preſence by. Sure I am neyther any Dictionarie or Grammer in the worlde will allow them thus to expounde this worde Is. Were it not better for them with vsus to retaine the word, and alſo with vsus ſo to expound it or vnderſtand it as not onelie vſually alwaies it is in all other Sacramentall phraſes, but alſo commonly alwaies when it is placed betweene two thinges of ſo diuers natures as bread and wine, and bodie and bloode be? The rather yet to prouoke them ſo to doe, let them but conſider whether their newe found ſenſe therof, or this of ours vnderſtanding it as placed for (it ſignifieth repreſenteth and ſealeth vntounto you my bodie broken and blood ſhed to be yours to eternall life) ſtand better but with theſe wordes of Chriſt, Doe this in remembrance of me. Luke 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24. eſpecially ſo taken as it is cleare Paule tooke them, when thereof he inferreth, 1. Cor. 11.26. as oft as ye ſhall eate this bread and drinke this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death till he come? For according to our doctrine, by theſe words thus vnderſtood Chriſt would teach vsus that this Sacrament was inſtituted by him of purpoſe to keepe in our memories his death p. 254and paſſion, and by the vſe whereof wee might, vntill his comming againe to iudgment, profeſſe and nouriſh our faith in his body then broken and blood ſhed for vsus. Here is nothing ſounding in the meane time towardes any corporall preſence of his to the outward elements or mouthes of the receiuers whoſoeuer: but theſe words In remembrance of me, and Till he come againe ſounde plainly to the cotrarie. For what need a thing to be done in remembrance of one bodily preſent; or how can a thing with any good ſence be ſaid to be done but till one come, that yet he being verily preſent in body is done? We read Act. 1.11. that ſhortly after the inſtitution of this Sacrament he viſibly aſcended into heauen, the Apoſtles ſeing him ſo to doe with their eyes: and there we read alſo that the Angels told them, that even ſo likewiſe he ſhoulde come againe when he comes from thence: reading alſo as we doe and hauehave alreadie noted once or twiſe, that the heauens muſt containe him vntill the reſtitution of all things. Act. 3.21. and that his comming from thence is plainely called his ſecond cōming, Heb. 9.28. how can we but thinke that Chriſt as well meant to p. 255forwarne vsus of theſe fellowes, that by their Conſubſtantiation or Tranſubſtantiation ſay vntounto vsus, lo heere is Chriſt with this piece of bread, or vnderunder the accidents therof, loe take him into thy verie mouth: as of thoſe that point vntounto vsus wrong Chriſtes heere or there, when he ſaid, if any ſhould ſay vntounto you (ſpeaking of ſuch as ſhould ſo doe after he had left the world, & was gone vntounto his Father) Loe heere is Chriſt, or there is Chriſt, beleeue him not? And how is it poſſible that we ſhould beleeue theſe places of Scripture to be true, and hold ſtil them notwithſtanding, that Chriſt is really and in his full bodie preſent in eueryevery communicants mouth? May we thinke with Peter, that the heauens doe and ſhall containe him ſtill, and that yet vponupon this occaſion he is alwaies thus heere? And that beeing ſo, how can it be that his comming from thence at the laſt daie, ſhall be but his ſecond comming, or that it is true when he comes from thence he ſhall come viſibly, no ſuch thing hauing euer beene ſeene heere. I knowe they will ſay, all theſe places are to be vnderſtood of his viſible body, and that they ſpeake of his inuiſible bodie. Yea but then we replie, where euer learned they p. 256either in Scripture, or in any ancient Father, that euer he had any ſuch inuiſible bodie: or howe can they euer make it ſinke into any mans head that hath rightlie learned in the Scriptures to know Chriſtes manhood, that at one and ſelfe ſame time he ſhoulde hauehave a viſible bodie and an inuiſible, yea one in the heauens to come inuiſiblie againe when he pleaſeth; and yet the ſame both there and this heere alſo multiplied into ſo many inuiſible bodies as there be receiuers mouthes? If this be not with the olde rotten doting and long agoe condemned Marcion to make a meere phantaſme of the bodie of Chriſt, let any man iudge. But once for all by this ſworde of the Spirit, to pierce this monſtrous conceipt of theirs to the verie heart and ſo to leaue it for dead: ſeeing they ſtande ſo much vponupon the letter and wordes of the text, I would hauehave them once againe to marke and remember that Saint Paule, that ſaith therein That which he receiued of the Lord he deliuered, hath vponupon his credite told vsus that the Lord ſpeaking of the bread called it not ſimplie and nakedly his bodie, but his bodie broken; and they all agree in one that he called the other his blood ſhed. If therefore they will ſticke p. 257to the wordes of the text, and yet hauehave a reall preſence as they teach, of his verie bodie and blood by vertue of the wordes thereof; they ſee moſt plainely then it muſt be of his bodie broken and of his blood ſhed. Vnleſſe therefore nowe they can finde vsus an inuiſible bodie broken and blood inuiſible ſhed of his, for the mouth of euerie receiuer, they neither ſay or doe any thing to the purpoſe according to the text. But I hope they are not ſo farre gone, but they know that it is now a thouſand and fiue hundred yeares agoe and more, ſince he had eyther his bodie broken or blood ſhed; and that when they were ſo, he died ſo that he dies no more, as we reade. Rom. 6.9. And therefore euen heereby the moſt ſimple may ſee that though they could ſhew that his bodie aliue or glorified could be inuiſible, infinite, and ſo multipliable as their doctrine importes, which yet they can neuer doe; that yet all this were nothing to the reall preſence of the bodie and blood of Chriſt in reſpect of that eſtate of his, when the one was broken, and the other ſhed for the remiſſion of our ſinnes. And yet heereby it is moſt euident that the bodie and bloode of Chriſt, in reſpect of this their eſtate p. 258and condition, are the bodie and blood of his, that expreſly by the words of the inſtitution we are heere to ſeeke for and to feede vponupon. How can this then be otherwiſe but as we teach, by calling heereby to our remembrance, that once moſt certainely they were thus handled for vsus; and by beleeuing that therby our ſaluation was wrought: which as oft as we doe, we are fed and nouriſhed therewith to eternall life. Thus then you ſee, the matter in hand, the Analogie of faith and good manners, and not onelyonly other Scriptures, but the verie words of the inſtitution lead ſtrongly to the maintenāce of our expoſitiō of Chriſts words in the inſtitution of this Sacrament, and to the vtter ouerthrow of theirs. And truely the ancient Fathers, as we hauehave a thouſand times ſhewed thē, are wholly alſo of our ſide, againſt them. It were infinite to bring al that might be found in them to this purpoſe, as by large volumes written and publiſhed by vsus about this matter we hauehave made it euident. Howbeit, ſomwhat yet now againe let vsus heare what ſome of the chiefe of them hauehave ſaid. Chriſt tooke bread which comforteth mans heart, that he might therby repreſent the trueth of his body, ſaith Hierome vponupon the 26. of Mathew. p. 259Chriſt in his laſt ſupper, (ſaith Cyprian in his ſermon de vnctione Chriſmatis) with his owne hands, at his table, gaue his Apoſtles bread & wine; but vponupon the croſſe, he gaue his body to be woūded by the hands of the ſouldiers, that ſincere trueth more ſecretly imprinted in the Apoſtles, & the true ſincerity might expound vntounto the nations, how bread & wine was the body & blood, and after what ſort the cauſes and their effects agreed, and diuers names and kindes ſhould be reduced to one eſſence, and the things ſignifying and the things ſignified were called with one & ſelfe ſame names. And Ambroſe in his 4. booke & 4. chapter of Sacraments writeth; that as in Baptiſme we receiue the ſimilitude of death, ſo in this ſacramēt we drink the ſimilitude of Chriſts blood. And Chryſoſtome moſt plainly ſaith in his 11. Homily vpō Mathew, that Chriſt his body it ſelfe is not in the holy veſſels, but the myſterie & Sacrament therof. Auguſtine in his 57. queſtion vponupon Leuiticus, preſcribeth for a rule, that the thing that ſignifieth is wont to beare the name of the thing which it ſingifieth, as Paule ſaid (ſaith he) the rock was Chriſt, & not ti ſignified Chriſt, but euē as it had bene indeed; which neuertheleſſe, was not Chriſt by ſubſtance, p. 260but by ſignification. And in his 23. Epiſtle he ſaith, that the ſimilitude betwixt the ſigne and thing ſignified is the verie cauſe why the one beareth the name of the other in Sacramentes: and therefore in his third booke of Chriſtian doctrine he ſaith, it is a miſerable ſlauerie of the ſoule to take the ſignes for the thinges ſignified, Cap. 5. Chriſt honored the ſignes and repreſentations which are ſeene, with the names of his bodie and blood, ſaith Theodoret in his ſecond dialogue. Gelaſius againſt Eutiches affirmeth the image & ſimilitude of the body and blood to be celebrated in theſe myſteries. Bede vponupon Luke. 22. writeth that becauſe bread doth comfort mans heart, and wine doth make good blood in his bodie; therefore the breade is myſtically compared to Chriſts bodie, and the wine to his blood. And who hath not heard vsus an hundred times tell them, that Tertullian in his fourth booke againſt Marcion, interpreteth This is my body, ſaying that it is to ſay, this is a figure of my bodie: and that likewiſe Auguſtine againſt Adimantus the Manichee writeth, that Chriſt doubted not to ſay, This is my body when he gaue a ſigne of his bodie: and vponupon the third Pſalme that he ſaith that Chriſt admitted p. 261Iudas to a banquet, where he commended a figure of his bodie to his diſciples? And what can be plainer then theſe eyther againſt them, or for vsus? All theſe thinges conſidered therefore, we may boldlie conclude that they hauehave no ground from Chriſtes wordes for their groſſe reall preſence.

And ſurely as little hauehave they eyther from his omnipotencie, Neither his omnipotency, nor glorified body will helpe them.or from the ſtate of his glorified bodie. For he will not ſhew his omnipotencie in whatſoeuer we liſt, but in effecting whatſoeuer himſelfe pleaſeth: and therefore they failing in the proofe as they hauehave, that it is his pleaſure to hauehave it as they would; it is in vaine for them to thinke that this can or will helpe them out. But indeed and trueth howſoeuer they would ſeeme to grounde much vponupon his almightineſſe, & to hauehave a ſtrong faith therein, and ſeeke to diſcredit our faith in the ſame: yet in this verie point lot theirs and ours be but a little indifferentlie compared togither, and ours ſoone will prooue farre the ſtronger. For I woulde hauehave them tell me in good ſadneſſe whether the Centurion Math. 8.8. that profeſſed that he beleeued that though Chriſt came no nearer his houſe then he was in p. 262reſpect of his bodilie preſence, that yet he was perſwaded that if he but ſpake the word, his ſcruant ſhould be healed; or Iairus, that ſaid come and lay thy handes on my daughter, and ſhe ſhall liue, Math. 9.19. ſhewed themſelues to be better perſwaded of Chriſtes omnipotencie. Sure I am, both reaſon and Chriſtes magnifying of the Centurions faith ought to leade them and all men to giuegive the preeminence to the Centurion aboue the other many degrees. Why ſhould they not then ſee and confeſſe, that we ſhewe our ſelues more ſtrongly perſwaded of his omnipotencie then they, in that we ſhew by our doctrine, that we firmly beleeue that he can & wil, euen remaining ſtil in heauen, feed vsus with his body brokē & blood ſhed, though that were ſo with them, ſo long agoe, as it hath; or they, that by theirs, ſeeme to be perſwaded, that this cannot be, vnleſſe according to their fancy, to the ſhaking and croſſing needleſly of ſo many groūds both of good māners & faith as we hauehave heard; he conuey himſelf into our mouthes? And to what purpoſe is it, for the maintenāce of this their opinion, for thē to labour as they do, to put infinite difference betwixt his body vnglorified & glorified, and to ſeeke to p. 263perſwade men, that it may be as they ſay in reſpect of his body now glorified, though not in reſpect therof before; ſeing it is moſt certaine, that when Chriſt inſtituted this Sacrament, his body was not glorified, and by his words expreſly, as I lately ſhewed, he inſtituted this to be a Sacrament of his body broken and bloode ſhed? For who doth not, or at leaſt may not heereby perceiue, that we hauehave not here any otherwiſe to deale with his eſtate glorified, thē therby now the more ſtrōgly to be perſwaded that indeed he is able to feede vsus with his broken body & blood ſhed once to our eternall ſaluation? For, that falling out ſence, and ſucceeding the inſtitutiō of this Sacrament, (wherin both by audible word, and viſible action, in breaking bread & powring forth of wine & calling them, as he did, he promiſed vsus that) proues vntounto vsus inuincibly that whatſoeuer here he offred & promiſed vsus, either by word or deed, that he hath gone through with for vsus and ſo now, that he by his reſurrection, aſcention, & ſitting at the right hand of his Father, hath begot vsus againe to a liuely hope. But vnles we would hauehave Chriſt otherwiſe now to be preſent to vsus and our mouthes, then he was when he himſelf miniſtred it to the diſciples, and p. 264their mouthes in the ſtate and time of his paſſible and vnglorified bodie: let them neuer talke more of the ſtate of his glorified bodie. His wordes ſhew that this was and is a Sacrament of him dying for vsus, and ſo a memoriall of his death and abaſement that he vndertooke, to merit our ſaluation by: and not of his glorie and of the life that he now hath therein, and therefore is able to beſtow vponupon his and to apply vntounto them whatſoeuer in his former eſtate he deſerued. The bread called his bodie broken, and the wine called his bloode ſhed, as I hauehave ſaid are both heere ſet before vsus, ſeuered the one from the other, and by his commaundement we are bound to take as wel the one as the other, and yet the one after the other, the more forceably thereby to leade vsus to the meditation of his death and paſſion, and to feede vponupon his bodie and bloode ſo handled for vsus. And as his hauing not yet ſo ſuffered, letted not the Apoſtles when he firſt did inſtitute it, from yet taking occaſion thereby and by his adminiſtring of it vntounto them, by faith from feeding vponupon his broken bodie and blood to the confirming of their communion with him: ſo no more doth his hauing had his p. 265bodie broken and bloode ſhed nowe aboue a thouſand and fiue hundred yeares agoe and neuer ſince, hinder vsus from feeding vponupon the ſame by faith through the mightie working of his Spirit. For the ſame Chriſt that then coulde make that which was not yet done, as verelie done to their faith, and ſo to bee fed vponupon as done: the ſame nowe doubtleſſe is able as eaſily to make that which was done ſo long agoe, preſent to our faith to nouriſh vsus to eternall life. By this then you ſee both their reall preſence that they talke of, to be fonde and to too groſſe, and the groundes that they hold in common for the ſame to be as bad.The ſpeciall groūds of the Lutherans confuted.

And to goe on now to ſcan and examine likewiſe what they holde ſeuerally in this caſe againſt vsus: it is notoriouſly knowne, the one ſorte (the fond imitators of Luther I meane) would maintaine their reall preſence of his body and blood together with bread and wine in this Sacrament, when theſe common groundes of theirs that they hauehave with the papiſtes as they feare will not ſerue their turne, by the force and ſtrength of the trueth of the perſonall vnion of the two natures in Chriſt. Whereupon as it appeares by their p. 266bookes extant and confidently publiſhed about this matter, (I ſpeake it with griefe and cōpaſſion towards thē, becauſe otherwiſe in the chiefeſt points of Chriſtian faith we account them our brethren, and fellow ſouldiers againſt the Antichriſtian Synagogue of Rome) they boldly vrge, aduouch, & teach, that immediatly vponupon this vnion conſummate in the Virgins wombe, the natures & properties of his Godhead were & are ſo vnited vntounto his manhood, that as the Godhead is eueriwhere, almighty & of infinite maieſty &c. ſo is the manhood, and therfore in this Sacramēt, as they teach. Eſpecially they inſiſt vponupon the being eueryevery where of his manhood, as his Godhead is, to this purpoſe. Suppoſe the antecedent were graunted them, yet they could neuer thereupon inferre their conſequent. For when will they be able to prooue that his Godhead is ſo preſent heere with bread & wine, that the receiuer of thē, by his mouth alwaies receiues the other? But indeede their antecedent is vntrue, abſurd, & verie hetetical: & but that I know, it is a moſt fearful thing before God, to hauehave our faith in reſpect of perſons, contrary to the rule of the holy Ghoſt, Iam. 2.1. and that the Lord will therefore moſt ſeuerely puniſh p. 267it, eſpecially when wilfully men will ſet themſelues to defende that which they hauehave but receiued from ſome perſon or perſons whom they hauehave in admiration, againſt a clearer trueth croſſing the ſame; I ſhould neuer make an end of wondring, that men, otherwiſe of ſuch learning and iudgement as ſome of theſe bee, euer ſhould dare, in theſe daies of ſo great light and after ſo often and manifeſt ſolemne ſentences of condemnation giuen of this their conceit in the auncient and primitiue Churches of Chriſt, ſet abroach ſuch an aſſertion. The vntrueth thereof appears enough, euen by that the Angels ſaying when he was riſen, He is riſen and is not heere. Math. 28.6. For ſeeing that cannot be vnderſtood of his Godhead, which is eueryevery where, and alwaies was; it muſt of neceſſitie be vnderſtood of his manhood. But beſides that, we hauehave his owne ſaying: The poore ye hauehave alwaies with you, but me ye ſhall not hauehave alwaies, Iohn. 12.8. to backe the ſpeach of his Angels: which as they knowe well inough, all the auncient Fathers conferring with that of Math. 28.20. alſo, ſo vnderſtand; that by this, the preſence of his manhood, they ſhewe, we may not looke for heere, p. 268in the earth vntill his ſecond comming, after once he had left the world and gone to his father, as he ſaid he would. Iohn. 16, 28. & by the other yet to our comfort they ſhew heere we inioy his Godhead. Let any man but read Fulgentius his ſecond Booke to King Traſimund, Vigilius his fourth Booke againſt Eutiches, Chap. 4. and Auguſtines 57. Epiſtle; and there he ſhall find, notwithſtanding they were as ſoundly and truely perſwaded of the vnion of the two natures in Chriſt as any of theſe men be, the veritie, localitie, and circumſcriptiblenes of Chriſtes manhoode by theſe and otherplaces and argumentes ſo vrged, that any man may perceiue this their poſition was counted verie falſe in thoſe daies. The abſurditie thereof appeares in that heerein they take that to be the cauſe ſufficient of his beeing euerie where in his manhood, that can be no cauſe thereof indeed. For ſee we not naturally and inſeperably the Sunne and light and heat to be conioyned; and yet who findes not daily by experience that the globe of the bodie of the Sunne remaining ſtill in heauen, yet we heere in earth inioy both the other? Yea, many other thinges there are, which though they be vnited together, p. 269yet whereof one ſtreacheth and reacheth further then the other: as the ſight of the eye reacheth further then the eye it ſelfe, & the conceites & cogitations of the mind & ſoule of man further then eyther the ſoule or bodie themſelues. What an abſurd kind of reaſoning is it then for to ſay, Chriſtes Godheade and manhoode are vnited, therefore whereſoeuer the Godheade is, there muſt the manhoode be alſo. And the hereticalneſſe thereof is monſtrous and intollerable. For not onelyonly with Marcion, it transformes Chriſtes true manhood into a meere phantaſme or imagination of ſuch a thing: but alſo in thus confounding the properties of the two natures, it confoundes the natures themſelues, and ſo eyther makes Chriſtes Godhead or manhoode with Eutiches to ſwallowe vp the one the other; or which is as abſurd, makes Chriſtes perſon to hauehave in it one eſtentiall and true Godhead, and an other communicated vntounto his manhood beginning when the perſonall vnion of theſe two natures begonne, which ſauours ſtrongly towardes Arianiſme. Beſides all this, if this were true that they ſay, that ſtreight vponupon this vnion of the two natures his manhood had the properties of the Godhead, p. 270communicated vntounto it; then not onelyonly to the ſhaking, but to the quite ſubuerting of all the Articles of our faith touching his manhood, we muſt hold, that aſſone as this vnion was conſummate in his mothers wombe, ſo ſoone he was there and euerie where elſe; and whiles he liued, he was not onelyonly where he was ſeepe and heard, but alſo eueryevery where: and the like we muſt hold to be true, when he died, was buried, deſcended into hell, roſe againe, aſcended, ſitteth at the right hand of the Father, and when he ſhall come againe to iudgement: that is, that in his verie manhood, at one & ſelf ſame time, he was vponupon the croſſe and not vponupon the croſſe, in his graue and not in his graue, that he deſcended into hell and that yet he was not in hell, that he roſe againe out of his graue and did not, aſcended vp into heauen and yet tarried ſtill below in the earth, that he ſits at the right hand of his Father in heauen and yet is elſewhere, and that he ſhall come from thence to iudgement and yet was neuer gone from hence: becauſe at all theſe times, his Godhead was, is, and ſhall be eueryevery where, and therefore his manhoode. Yea, we muſt hold, that he was at one & ſelfe ſame time compaſſed in place, p. 271and yet filled eueryevery place; that he was paſſible and impaſſible; infinite, and finite; viſible and inuible, in reſpect of his manhood; the one through the naturall condition thereof, and the other through a communicated Godhead therunto. All which eyther quite raiſe theſe Articles before touched, out of the Creed, or at leaſt they inforce vsus to conceiue them in ſuch a fond ſenſe, as neither the Scriptures nor any auncient writer lead vsus vntounto, or incourage vsus in. Heereupon it comes that in plaine tearmes, becauſe the Article of the aſcention is moſt vrged againſt them that they are not aſhamed, ſome of the greateſt of them; to interprete that, to be no chaunging at all of his place, but a becomming inuiſible, whereas before he was viſible. By which new kinde of Diuinitie, we may ſay, that he that was ſeene before in a romth is gone out of it, he that was below is gone vp into & vpper romth, if he hauehave but hid himſelfe behinde the curteines. And ſeeing by the ſame reaſon they muſt be driuen to inteprete the reſt in like manner, hereupon alſo it will followe, that his leauing his mothers wombe, and his riſing out of the graue, and therefore his not beeing founde p. 272there in his bodie, was but a deceiuing of the ſenſes of his mother, and of thoſe that ſought him in his graue and could not finde him: for he was there ſtil though ſhe thought that ſhe was quite deliuered of him, and they could not finde him there. So alſo by this when he was dying vponupon the croſſe viſibly in all other places, he was inuiſibly in his verie ſame manhood aliue, and not toucht by his enemies. O what a ridiculous, monſtrous and fooliſh aſſertion is this, whereupon all theſe moſt groſſe abſurdities both againſt reaſon and all religion follow! Who can once enter but into the view thereof whoſe heart withall will not tremble and quake, and for the horrour thereof be extre emely amazed and aſtonied? The Lordes name therefore for euer be bleſſed that hitherto hath kept theſe our Churches from the infection of the poyſon heereof; and I beſeech him for his Chriſtes ſake, that for euer he would vouchſafe ſo to doe ſtill. Luther neuer ſought to defend his Conſubſtantiation with this: yea his beſt friendes that he had, and amongſt them that famous learned man Phillip Melancton plainely reporte, that yet he was brought to ſee his errour therein ere he died, though he liued p. 273not to raſe it out of his bookes. Since his prepoſterous followers of a wilful eagernes to maintaine that which once heerein they had vndertooke, beeing driuen to ſee the weakneſſe of the former groundes that they had before common with the papiſts hauehave as with the furious tempeſt of contention thus runne themſelues vponupon this rocke. The Lond in his mercy graunt them in time to ſee their folly, that they may beartily repent heereof, and of the deſtruction of the Churches of Chriſt; whereof by this meanes they hauehave beene perilous authors. Amen. Amen.The ſpecial groūds & fruits of the popiſh real preſence, viewed & confuted.

Now thus to leaue theſe and to come to the Papiſtes, to viewe what ſpeciall groundes and conceites they hauehave for the and intenance of their reall preſence, and ſo whither they are growne thorowe the good liking that they hauehave of their opinion truely I ſee I ſhall enter into the rauing of ſurely a rotten dunghil, the fauour wherof may iuſtly offende both God and man. For by occaſion of this their opinion of reall preſence by retue of Tranſubſtantiation, they hauehave transformed this Sacrament into a Maſſe which they may worthily ſo call, it conſiſteth of ſuch a maſſe of errours and impieties. For thereby, p. 274whereas by Chriſtes inſtitution it is a Sacrament, As firſt their making of it a propitiatorie ſacrifice.wherein GOD offereth and giueth to vsus his Sonnes broken bodie and bloode ſhed to feede on, they …rne it into a ſacrifice whereby man ſhoulde offer vp againe the Sonne to the Father: and whereas the vſe of it, as Chriſt hath left it vntounto vsus, leadeth vsus to the onelyonly ſacrifice that Chriſt hath offered once for all in his owne perſon, thereupon by faith to feede to our perfect and euerlaſting ſaluation, they in this their Maſſe leade vsus to a propitiatorie ſacrifice which they ſaye their prieſtes therein offer both for the quicke and dead, as though quite contrarie to the doctrine of the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes, Chriſt were ſuch a Prieſt as needed ſucceſſors, as Aaron, to offer often ſacrifice, for that the once offering of it himſelfe ſhould no more make the commers thereunto perfect, then the ſacrifices that the priefies after the order of Aaron offered. Heb. 7.24. &c. If they ſay that that which they offer is another than that which Chriſt himſelfe offered: then why and nowe ſhoulde it be ſaide, That hee by his owne bloode entered once into the holy p. 275place, and hath obtaynedeternall redemption for vsus. Heb. 9.12. And to ſay that it is the ſame onelyonly repeated againe by them, what neede that, ſeeing by this by himſelfe once offered as we reade, Hebre. 7.27.9.26. & 10.10. hee hath done it ſufficiently for our redemption? Whether therefore they woulde make it the ſame or an other, which they ſay their prieſtes offer, they cannot eſcape but that they muſt imuriouſly goe about both to robbe Chriſt and his ſacrifice of that honour and prerogatiue that is due vntounto them. Paule takes it for graunted that if Chriſt himſelfe ſhoulde offer himſelfe often, then he muſt often die, Hebre. 9.26. and that thereupon it came that his offering of himſelfe once for all, was ſufficient to proc… vsus that by him ſo offered, (which he calles the newe and liuing way, Cap…o… 20. …eeke to come to heauen; firſt that he was a man without ſin. Heb. 7.26. and ſuch a man as liueth for euer, and ſo hath a preſthoode that cannot paſſe from one to an other, 24. and then that hee offered himſelfe without faulte to GOD by the Aeternall ſpirite. What an abſurde thing then were i… p. 276to imagine that a popiſh ſinfull Prieſt, that hath no ſuch eternall ſpirit in him to dignifie his offering, can offer Chriſt againe, or can without attempting to pull Chriſt out of beauen to the croſſe againe take vponupon him to offer him to his Father. I know they ſay their ſacrificing or offering of him is vnbloodie, and ſo they thinke they can auoyde theſe abſurdities as long as they leaue onelyonly to Chriſt the offering of the bloody. But this will not ſerue their turne one whit. For if Chriſtes bloodie ſacrifice of it ſelfe be ſufficient, as theſe places moſt ſtrengly prooue it is, what neede is there of this vnbloodie ſacrifice of theirs? For where perfect remiſſion of ſinnes and iniquities is ſuch that God according to his conenant will remember them no more, there is no more offering for ſinne (ſaith Paule, Heb. 10.17.18.) and in confeſſing theirs to be vnbloodie, they muſt confeſſe that, howſoeuer they hauehave picked the purſes of men both aliue and deade with the contrarie perſwaſion, it is utterly vnauailable to put away the ſinnes eyther of the aliue or deade. For without ſhedding of blood is no remiſſion, Heb. 9.22. A ſacrifice ſometimes the Fathers call is, becauſe it is the commemoration p. 277of Chriſtes ſacrifice, and ſo that which occaſioneth vsus to offer vntounto God the ſacrifice of thankeſgiuing; in regard whereof they call it alſo the Euchariſt: but a reall offering againe of Chriſt to his Father for the ſinnes of others aliue or dead, viſible or inuiſible, bloodie or vnbloodie, neuer any of them thought or taught i… to bee. We hauehave to offer our ſelues bodies and ſoules a liuing ſacrifice to God; which we doe in ſeruing of him according to his word. Rom. 12.1. An acceptable ſacrifice to God is a broken and contrite heart, Pſal. 51.17. and we are willed, Heb. 13. to offer the ſacrifice of praiſe alwaies to God, that is, the fruit of our lip… which confeſſe his name (mamely in powring forth our prayers & pralſes vntounto him;) & to do good & to diſtribute we are there alſo commaunded, for that with ſuch ſacrifices God is pleaſed Other ſacrifices then this we are not taught to offer, and offering theſe well we may boldly truſt to the moſt perfect and abſolute ſacrifice that Chriſt made once for all, which for euer remains freſh and new in the ſight of the heauenlie Father to make vsus acceptable vntounto him in his beloued. Hoc facite, doe this, though Virgill helpe them with his phraſe, Cum faciam p. 278vitula, when I ſacrifice Calues, is too caluiſh a reaſon or grounde to make them thus proude and ſaucie to take vponupon them any way to offer Chriſt againe to his Father for the ſinnes of men. But whither will not fooliſh man runne when once he hath left the beaten way of the Lord in his word, to follow his owne deuiſe and conceite? Chriſtes offering of himſelfe, by himſelfe, doubtleſſe was neuer applied to the good of any that whiles they were aliue tooke not hold of it: and yet ſuch is the impudencie of theſe men, that nowe they hold the intention of their Prieſt in ſaying of his Maſſe, ſhall carie the benefit of this ſacrifice whether he liſt, to liue or dead. Yea heereby ſeeing their credit growe as it hath, and their gaines come rowling in, they hauehave not beene aſhamed not yet are in this greate light, to make their ſacrifice in the Maſſe a ſalue for all ſores, and phiſicke for all diſeaſes both of man and beaſt. Well yet this is not all the miſchiefe that their conceit of reall preſence by tranſubſtantiation hath brought them vntounto. For beſides this, heereupon they are growne euen to honour and worſhippe their hoaſtes once p. 279conſecrated, euen as Chriſt himſelfe; and therefore whereas Chriſt commanded that which he eate, brake, and gaue, to be eaten ſtreight, they hoyſt it vp ouer their heades, that all the people may gaze vponupon it, adore and worſhippe it for their Chriſt and Sauiour: and then when they hauehave plaide with it their fill, for the moſt part they eate vp all themſelues alone, that be the maſſing prieſtes, and if they leaue anie them they hang vp in a Pixe ouer the Altar, to ſerue them an other time; which all commers into the Church in the meane time muſt adore and reuerence, though ſo hanged vp and hidden from their eyes. Wherein doubtleſſe they committe moſt groſſe idolatrie. For firſt they themſelues manie of them holde that the prieſt muſt hauehave an intention to conſecrate; or elſe though he vtter the wordes, there followes no tranſubſtantiation thereupon: and therefore wiſedome woulde if they had anye care to auoyde Idolatrie, that they ſhoulde be ſure of the prieſtes intention, before they fell to worſhippinge of the hoaſte, or rather becauſe they can neuer bee ſure of p. 280that becauſe no man can know a mans thought but himſelfe, and eueryevery one can and often doth diſſemble and make ſhow to thinke that which he doth not, they ſhould and would, if there were any feare of God in them, vtterlie abſtaine therefrom. Againe vntounto this day they cannot agree amongeſt themſelues of the wordes and meanes of conſecration: their Schoolemen I am ſure Scotus, Petrus de Aliaco, Occam, Thomas Aquinas, Durand, and others wonderfully hauehave iarred about this matter, and as yet I cannot finde they are fully agreed. In the meane time therfore whiles they be, they ſhould in all reaſon be better aduiſed what they doe. But to let theſe reaſons alone, who can or may thinke that it can ſtand with Chriſtes ſaying, Iohn. 4.24. God is a ſpirit, and they that worſhip him muſt worſhip him in ſpirit and trueth, that they ſhould nowe thus worſhip a wafer cake in ſhew and taſt for verie Chriſt? I am truely perſwaded that there hath beene no one thing that hath more hardned the hearts eyther of Turkes or Iewes from becomming Chriſtians, then to heare and ſee as they doe, theſe men thus to worſhip theſe wafer Chriſies of theirs; who yet would be accounted p. 281the onelyonly good Chriſtians. And it is certaine euen for this the heathen Philoſooner and Phiſition Auerois, (though he by trauelling and reading was acquainted with wonderfull many fooliſh & fond kindes of Idolatrie) liuing and floriſhing about the yeare of Chriſt noo. iudged Chriſtians to be the moſt fooliſh Idolaters in the world. And without all doubt this hath beene averie God Manzim, that is, of power and riches to them. For the people beeing perſwaded that their prieſts can turne ſo quickly a poore wafer into Chriſt their Sauiour, and that they can at their pleaſure offer him vntounto his Father for their ſoules health both whiles they are aliue and when they are dead they hauehave not cared what honour and riches they hauehave beſtowed vponupon them. And therefore not vnfitlie may that of Daniell be as well verified of them euen for this, as of them of whome he ſpoke moſt properlie and litterally, That they honour the God Mauzim, a God whom their Fathers knew not, Dan. 11.38. And yet behold if we goe on but a little further, more iniquitie and impietie in their Maſte then all theſe. For therein they hauehave quite contrarie to Chriſtes inſtitution, by abſurdlie taking p. 282it to be a ſacrament of Chriſtes life, That they miniſter it but in one kinde.and ſo of his bodie and bloode now togither in his manhood in heauē, (wheras he left it to be a ſacrament of his death, and ſo of the ſundring therby of the one from the other, as I hauehave ſhewed,) and by a new deuiſe of Concomitance, that is of the going of his bodie & blood now alwaies together, robd the common people of the one half of the Sacrament, denying thē the cup, & telling them that in taking the hoaſt, they take al; for his body & blood are & goe now togither. But if it were thus, why do they themſelues take both; or would they hauehave vsus to think it needful for thē to eat him once vnderunder the form of bread, & after to drink him againe vnderunder the forme of wine, & that the one is inough for the people? Euident it is in the words of the inſtitution, and by the practiſe therof in Pauls time, 1. Cor. 11. that al were as expreſly cōmanded to drinke of the cup, as to eate of the other. But Chriſt being the wiſedome of the Father, had not ſo much wiſdom & forecaſt as theſe men belike, to foreſee that his body & blood go togither, & therfore for lacke of foreſight he ordained a ſuperfluous thing. What an intollerable pride and preſumption is this that duſt and aſhes, and ſinnefull man p. 283ſhall thus vndertake to alter & to controule the ordinance of our Lord and ſauiour? Before the Councel of Conſtance, which was in the yeare, 1414. we finde not the adminiſtring of this Sacrament vnderunder both kindes, generally and publiklie forbid the common communicant. And in the councell of Baſil about ſome 16. years after, for all that, it was permitted to the Boemians againe. De conſecratione diſt. 2. Gratian alleages a decree of Gelaſius a Biſhop of Rome a thouſand yeares agoe, to binde all men to receiue in both kinds, ſaying; either let him that receiueth receiue both, or neither, becauſe the diuiſion of one miſterie cannot be without ſacriledge. By this let them that hold their Popes ſolmne ſentences for Oracles, learne what manner of perſons now their Popes and prieſtes in this point are become, that now openly profeſſe and practiſe the contrary hereunto. That their prieſts take it alone.And becauſe they hauehave alſo in their Maſſes (as they ſay) ſo often conſecration, and yet none receiue but the prieſt himſelfe for the moſt parte: what ſhift will they make with that, that we find in the ſame diſtinction Cap. Peracta: alleadged there, as the ſolemne ſentence of Pope Calixt (in the yeare 223. or thereaboute, p. 282duplicate page p. 283duplicate page p. 284conſecration being done (ſaith he) all that will not be ſhut from the Church ſhould communicate; for ſo the Apoſtles taught, and the faſhion of the Romane Church was. Loe heere is both a Popes decree, and that grounded both vponupon the Apoſtles practiſe and the ancient Romane Churches alſo, flatly againſt the practiſe of the Romane Church that now is. And in verie deed no man can reade that which Saint Paule hath written of this matter 1. Cor. 11. but he muſt needs moſt plainly ſee that it was then the Apoſtles practiſe not onelyonly to adminiſter it in both kindes, but alſo openly in the aſſemblies, and to al that could and would trie and examine themſelues: and this man beeing Biſhoppe of Rome was not ignorant what the faſhion of the ancient Romane Church had bene. Wherefore as in many other thinges ſo in this it appeares for all their great bragges and countenance of antiquitie, that the Romane Church that now is, Laſtly their Cō ſubſtantiation is confuted.is become an Apoſtata and runnagate from the ancient Apoſtolique Romane Church indeed. Al theſe abhominations & a number moe in their Maſſe, which here without too to much tediouſneſſe I cannot ſtande vponupon they are ſo manie, ariſe & grow from their p. 285ſpeciall minion and paragon Tranſubſtantration: and therefore vntill her braines be daſht out there will neuer be any hoe of their fooliſhneſſe and madneſſe in this maſſe and Chaos of confuſion of theirs. They would beare the world in hand that ſhe is moſt ancient and yet indeede and trueth how long ſoeuer before they were in conceiuing of her, yet ſhe was neuer growne ripe to the birth or borne before Innocent the thirdes time. For neuer before the Laterane councell, which was in his time and in the yeere 1211. (as I hauehave ſaid before,) was this decreed to be a Catholike trueth amongſt themſelues. And this their owne greate Doctor and Biſhop Tonſtall in a booke of his written of this matter confeſſeth adding, that perhaps it had beene better to hauehave leſs the manner how Chriſt becommeth preſent in this Sacrament, as it was before that councell. Now before this, the Greeke Church was departed from the Church of Rome, and therefore this was rather the decree of a priuate and particular conuenticle then of the vniuerſall Church of God; and therefore not onelyonly wee, but ſtill vntounto this day the Greekes reiect both this councell and decree, though I know much tempering p. 286hath beene with them ſince to the contrary. Scotus is not onelie of the ſame minde with Tonſtall, but if you reade him, diſt. 11, quaeſt. 3. vponupon the 48. booke of Sentences, you ſhall not only finde, that he bringeth a number of obiections againſt this, which he neuer anſwereth to anie purpoſe but alſo that in the end, he ſetting downe his ſole determination for it, that yet moſt plainely he confeſſeth, that the principall ground of interpreting Chriſtes wordes by tranſubſtantiation, is this, that de ſacramentis tenendum eſt ſicat tenet ſancta Eccleſia Romana: of ſacraments, we muſt hold as the holy Romaine Church holdeth. For the which axiome, or rule, in ſo weightie a matter, in his next wordes he ſhewes, that the beſt grounde he had, was an Extrauagant, de haereticis, Cap. ad abolendam, wherein ſome ſuch things be determined, by a ſauorite of the ſame. Which is as good ouidence, as if we ſhoulde aske a theoues follow, whether he be a theife, if not worſe. Gabriell Biell another great Doctor of theirs, writing vponupon the Canon of the Maſſe, confeſſeth that it is not expreſſed in the Canon of the Bible, whether by tranſubſtantiation, p. 287or conſubſtantiation, the bodie of Chriſt be there. And Iohn Fiſher a biſhop and martyr of theirs, as they count him, writing againſt Luthers booke of the captiuitie of Babilon, thinketh that euerye man vnderſtandeth that the certaintie of that matter dependes not ſo much of the Goſpell, as it doth vponupon the vſe, tradition, and cuſtome of the Church. And more truely and eaſilye in ſhow, if it had pleaſed the Church might thoſe wordes of Chriſt otherwiſe hauehave beene expounded, (ſaith Scotus in the forefaide place). Theſe things ſaide togither and conferred with that ſaying of Chriſt, They worſhippe me in vaine, reaching for doctrines mens praecepts Math. 15.9. and with Peser. 1. Epiſt. …. Cap. 14. Ʋerſ. 18. where he telles all them, to whome he wrote that generall Bpiſtle, that Chriſt had redeemed them from the vaine conuerſation which they had receiued by the traditions of the Fathers: we ſhall ſoone ſee that it is noe rocke whereupon they builde this their tranſubſtantiation, but a very ſand and a rotten foundation. Yet becauſe they are ſo confident in this matter as they are, I will not leaue them thus. Will p. 288you then know the firſt author that gaue them any inkling or grounde of inuention heere of. Truely it was not Marke the Euangeliſt nor any ſuch; but yet vnleſſe I be much deceiued, one Marke markt them out the way the firſt of all others to finde it out. This Marke that I ſpeake of, was a ſamous Magition and a damnable filthie heretique of the brood of Ʋalentilians, a verie ancient one (I muſt needs confeſſe.) For I finde that he liued in the time of the Emperor Antarinus Pius which was but 150. yeares after Chriſt. Of this wretch writeth Epiphanius in his 34. hereſie, prouing that which he ſaith out of Irenaus his 9. chapter againſt the hereſies of the Valentinians, where indeed it is ſo teſtified of him, that when by his enchantment or inkling he had cauſed a cup of white wine to beare the colour of blood, that thē he made his fellowe beleeue that by his inuocation ouer it, it was ſo tranſubſtantiated into blood, that ſo by his meanes it might be thought that the grace that is ſuper vniuerſa that is, oner all, had inſtilled ſanguinem ſuum in illud poculum, his bloode unto that cup: by which meanes when he had made them in admiration of him and ſo deſirous to drinke there of, he gaue them (as it p. 289is there noted) with greate ſolemnitie of wordes, and ſo wonderfully bewitched many. And the rather was I led and am thus to thinke, becauſe the ſame Irenaeus in the 8. chapter of the ſaid booke (ſecretly directed as I take it by the ſpirit of prophecie) ſaid that he was verè pracurſor Antichriſti, that is, truely Antichriſtes forerunner. If therefore the former nouitie of their tranſubſtantiation pleaſe them not, let them hence fetch the petigree therof, and ſo let Marcus be the firſt conceiuer of it, and Innocentius he that bore and brought it forth. Or if this be not to their mindes, I will confeſſe that it may be that they learned it of the heathen, who as they imagined with certaine words & geſtures could call downe their Hecate, Iupiter, and Elicius as oft as they liſt. For neuer made or at this day maketh any heathen man more adoe then they about this buſineſſe, about the moſt idolatrous toy of ſuperſtition that euer they went about. For the wordes muſt be pronounced with one breath, and they vſe ſuch croſſing ſuch bending and bowing, breathing and haling of the wordes to the elementes, as they make themſelues verie ridiculous to any that are wiſe that ſee them & marke p. 290their doings. No iugler nor ſycophant vponupon a ſtage are more full of fond and trifling actions and geſtures then a Prieſt at Maſſe, and all to effect this their tranſubſtantiation. Who can be perſwaded that the Lord of heauen and earth that delighteth in no vanitie, but altogether in ſinceritie and ſimplicitie, can take delight in this geare? Whiles they hauehave beene ſo buſie to eſtabliſh the credite of this their deuiſe by fonde tales of diuerſe miracles ſhowed heere and there, and I cannot tell where, it had beene more needefull for them to hauehave laboured firſt to agree amongeſt themſelues about the matter, and to cleare the doubtes that they hauehave moued themſelues by occaſion thereof. But this hitherto they hauehave founde ſo comberſome a thing to doe, that I dare be bolde to ſay by that which I hauehave red and coulde ſet downe thereof, the varieties of their opinions and intricate doubtes heereupon moued by themſelues, and vnanſwered and vnſatiſfied as yet, would require a longer time than I hauehave yet ſpent ſince I began to talke of this Sacrament, to ſet them downe in. Yea though they vſe and like the word Tranſubſtantiation neuer ſo well, yet p. 291though they know that both by the words of the inſtitution, and by Saint Paules ſpeaches had thereof, 1. Cor. 10.11. and by the teſtimonies with one conſent of all the ancient Fathers, as we hauehave often ſhewed them, Chriſt called vndoubtedly the bread which he brake and gaue, his bodie broken; and the wine in the cup his bloodſhed, they cannot yet be brought to tell vsus or to agree amongſt themſelues, what it is that ſhould be or is heere tranſubſtantiated and conuerted into his body. Nay in trueth they dare not ſay that eyther bread or wine or any thing elſe are the thinges: and yet we muſt yealde to a tranſubſtantiation though no man yet could or would tell vsus, and ſtand to it when he hath done, whereof it is. Howſoeuer, eyther they muſt ſay it is of ſome thing, or not: if of any thing, then they know that therupon it will follow that of that thing, whatſoeuer it be, here Chriſts bodie is made; which is abſurd they themſelues ſeeme to thinke; & to ſay nothing is turned or tranſubſtantiated into it, is quite to looſe their cauſe. In very deed they are inforced to ſee, that if they ſhould once by the demōſtratiue particle This that Chriſt vſed, vnderſtand the bread & wine, that then it would moſt cleerly follow that p. 292there is a Trope or figure in the ſpeech of Chriſt, or that elſe they muſt confeſſe bread and wine to be turned into the bodie and bloode of Chriſt, and therefore to ſhune both theſe ſtraites they cannot tell what to vnderſtand by it, and ſo are at their wittes end. By that which they ſay and doc they yet are reſolute that they cō uey and banniſh away the ſubſtances of bread and wine, and leaue nothing but the bare accidents thereof, vnderunder which they hold luſtilie Chriſt to be fleſh, blood & bone. And therefore they ſing merilie in their Hymne or Carrol vponupon Corpus Chriſti day, Sub diuerſis ſpeciebus, ſignis tantùm & non rebus, latent res eximiae, caro, cibus, ſangnis, potus, manet homo Chriſtus totus, ſub vtraque ſpecie: a ſumente non conciſus, non confractus, nec diuiſus integer accipitur, &c. that is, VnderUnder diuerſe kinds, ſignes onelyonly and not thinges, moſt excellent thinges lie hid, fleſh, meate, bloode, drinke, yea whole Chriſt abideth vnderunder eyther kinde: of the taker not bruiſed not broken, nor deuided but whole is he taken. But for all this their ſturre it ſhould ſeeme yet that nowe they are perſwaded they hauehave him rather by banniſhing of bread and wine (though they cannot tell p. 293eyther how, whither, or into what,) then by tranſubſtantiation of breade and wine thereinto or of anything elſe. Howſoeuer it were or bee, that there ſhould remaine nothing but the bare accidentes or out ward formes of bread and wine that is inough vtterly to ouerthrow the nature of the Sacrament. For in Sacramentes alwaies there muſt bee an Analogie betwixt the ſignes and the thinges ſignified, which cannot be betwixt bare accidents of bread and wine, (for that they alone feede not at all) and the bodie and blood of Chriſt which are our foode to eternall life: and therfore to aboliſh or abandon by what meanes ſoeuer bread & wine, is to deſtroy quite the nature of the Sacrament. That the verie ſubſtances thereof remaine for all their prating, when they hauehave vſed all their art & the trickes therof they can, both Scripture, Fathers, and reaſon make it moſt euident. For in the wordes of the inſtitution, ſcanne and marke them wel who liſt, it is moſt cleare that Chriſt tooke verie bread and wine, and that he both gaue that which he tooke and that they tooke the ſame and no other, though by his inſtitution now chaunged in name, vſe, and eſtimation as I hauehave ſaid. And therefore p. 294Paule retaineth the name of the bread and cup ſtill, euen when they come to be eaten and drunken vponupon, 1. Cor. 11.26. and Chriſt calles it the fruite of the vine tree, and that after he had deliuered it, and they had drunken therof. Mar. 14.25. And in all other Sacramentes as we hauehave hearde, though the like phraſe of ſpeach hauehave bene vſed, yet alwaies hauehave they beene fulland forcible Sacramentes to offer, to deliuer, and to ſeale the deliuerie of the inwarde grace thereby intended to the right receiuers, without any ſuch aboliſhing or tranſubſtantiating of the outwarde elements thereinto, as is heere imagined. And if Chriſt had had anie ſuch purpoſe, it had ſure beene as eaſie a matter with him to hauehave vttered his minde in and by wordes ſounding plainely that he ment to effect ſome ſuch thing (as by ſaying, this is turned into my bodie, or let this be tranſubſtantiated thereinto, or let the ſubſtance of this ceaſe, and in the romph thereof let my bodie come and bee) as onelyonly to hauehave ſaide affirmatiuelie that it was his bodie. But hauing but ſaide ſo, it is moſt certaine it was ſome certaine thing that he affirmed to be ſo: for he would neuer call bare nothing or an indiuiduum p. 295vagum, an vncertaine thing, (as Gardiner holds he ment by This) his bodie. And therefore wil they nil they, by Chriſts words interpreted as they doe, eyther we muſt hauehave Chriſtes bodie, which once was of the nature of the Virgin his Mother (that ſo he might be that ſeede of the woman to treade downe the ſerpentes head, and in whome all the nations of the world ſhoulde be bleſſed) whenſoeuer any of their prieſtes therby intend to conſecrate (as they ſpeake) made of a wafer againe; or at leaſt now growne to be ſuch an one as that it can lie hid vnderunder the forme therof, the ſubſtance of breade beeing gone to giuegive it romph. But once againe I muſt tel them that the words of Chriſt are ſo farre from ſounding any ſuch thing, as that if they ſhould be taken litterally as they ſound, they rather ſhew that his bodie and blood were become bread & wine or turned thereinto, then the contrary. For when Moſes rod was turned into a ſerpent, or when Lots wife was turned into a pillar of ſalt, if one ſhoulde hauehave ſaide of the one that it was Moſes rod, or of the other that it was Lots wife, woulde anie thereby hauehave vnderſtoode that he mente that the ſcrpent was tranſubſtantiated into the p. 296rod or the pillar of ſalt into Lots wife, nay would not the verie ſounde of the wordes moſt plainly lead any man rather to vnderſtand that his meaning was to ſhew Moſes rod was turned into the ſerpent, and Lots wife into the pillar of ſalt? Wherefore they hauehave not onelyonly no ground in the Scriptures for this their opinion, but not onelyonly other ſcriptures but the verie words of the inſtitution are directly againſt them. And the ancient Fathers are plaine that though Chriſt called breade and wine his bodie broken and his blood ſhed, that yet neyther by tranſubſtantion nor anie way elſe the ſubſtances thereof are gone. Theodoret both in his firſt Dialogue & ſecond alſo, though moſt plainely (as I hauehave noted alreadie) he confeſſe that Chriſt honored bread and wine with the names of his bodie and blood, moſt flatly ſaith that yet he changed not their natures but added grace to nature, and that the myſticall ſignes after ſanctification (as he pleaſeth to ſpeake) goe not from their nature, figure or forme. And Gelaſius againſt Eutiches writeth directly that in the Euchariſt the nature of bread and wine ceaſe not. Ambroſe alſo, as Gratian alledgeth him De conſecr. diſt. 2. cap. p…nis, writing de ſacramentis of the p. 297Sacraments, noteth that in this Sacrament the word of Chriſt is ſo powerfull, vt ſint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur, that they remaine that which they were before, and yet are turned into another thing. And if we would know in what ſenſe and ſort they are chaunged into another thing remaining alſo ſtill the ſame that they were before, the ſame Gratian a little before in the chapter quia corpus, teacheth vsus to learne that of our ſelues by the chaunge that we finde in our ſelues by regeneration, and that out of Euſebius Emiſſenus; which as he noteth and we all know is true not at all in reſpect of outward ſubſtance (for that is the ſame in vsus when we are regenerate that it was before) but onelie of inward grace and qualitie, which is that which I call heere in this Sacrament an alteration of the outward elementes in name vſe and eſtimation. Bertram in a ſet treatiſe written of this matter as it is thought in Carolus Calunus time, by manie argumentes proues bread and wine ſtill to remaine. And Elfricke about the yeare 996. (as Fox noteth) in two Saxon Epiſtles, which to that ende he recordes, therein taught bread and wine heere no otherwiſe to be the bodie and bloode of Chriſt, p. 298then Manna and the water of the rocke in the wildernes were Chriſt, which all men knowe they were but by repreſentation and ſignification, and not really; for that then Chriſt was not become man. And the ſame man, as maiſter Fox noteth, tranſlated a ſermon out of Latine into the Saxon tongue (which he inſertes wholly in his ſtory alſo) by him then appointed to be red on Eaſter day to the Saxons inhabiting then this land; which who ſo readeth ſhal finde that it contains much direct matter & proofe, both againſt tranſubſtantiation, and groſſe reall preſence built thereupon. In Bedes time alſo, who died about the yeare 734. the ſame doctrine was continued heere and elſewhere, as it appeareth by that which he hath written vponupon the inſtitution, as it is ſet downe by Luke 22. where he ſhewes (as I hauehave noted before) not onelyonly the likelyhoode of the vſe of bread and wine in nouriſhing and cheering our bodies, to be the cauſe they beare the names of the bodie and blood of Chriſt, which ſemblablie nouriſh and feede our ſoules: but alſo he ſo ſpeaketh and writeth thereof, that yet he ſhewes he tooke them to be bread and wine ſtill. And as by this p. 299you may ſee then that both Scriptures and Fathers are againſt them herein, ſo queſtionles is all ſound reaſon, moſt ſtronglye: which as long as it is not controwled or croſt, either by the doctrine of faith, or good manners taught in the Scriptures, is worth the liſtening vntounto. Now reaſon and all our ſences, and the experience that we hauehave had and may hauehave of the ſowreing of the wine, of the mouling and corrupting of the hoaſts, ſo that wormes may and hauehave bred thereof, and that Dogges, Battes, Rattes, and Miſe, and ſo not onelyonly vnbeleeuers can feede thereof, are moſt ſure euidence vntounto vsus, that for all their great brags to the contrary, with all their croſſing, whiſpering, breathing, becking and doucking, and demure pronuncing of the words, they cānot neither once remoue the ſubſtances of bread and wine away, nor bring Chriſtes bodie or blood into the romphs thereof. For neither can theſe things that I hauehave ſpoken of, all or any of thē be incident to bare accidents, neither yet to the moſt precious body & blood of Chriſt Ieſus God and man. For who knoweth not that bare accidents are not, nor can be ſubiectes of ſuch accidents as theſe bee? Neither can p. 300they be matter to nouriſh and feed eyther man or beaſt withal, or to breede any ſuch thinges vponupon. And howſoeuer theſe men can finde in their heartes to grant that the bodie of the Chriſt whom they ſerue may be ſubiect to all theſe thinges, ſure I am the bodie of the true Chriſt (that the ſaying of the Pſalmiſt might be verified therof, Thou wilt not ſuffer thy holie one to ſee corruption, Pſal. 16.10.) could not poſſiblie be helde of death vntill it rotte: and therefore much leſſe will the heauenly Father now that it is glorified, let it be eyther meat for ſuch filthie vermin or for the mouthes of wicked men, or to be ſubiect to putrefaction that wormes ſhal breede theron. But I knowe though ſome of them hauehave not beene aſhamed to ſaie that he can and may be eaten of ſuch beaſtes as well as of ſuch men (whereof none of them now doubt;) yet generally they ſay when ſuch thinges fall out with the outward elements as I hauehave ſpoken of, then Chriſt by his almightie power conueyeth himſelfe away, and lets the olde ſubſtances come againe and ioyne themſelues with their accidentes. In the meane time then I would the beſt ſtudied of them in this point could eyther tell vsus what was becomde p. 301in the meane time of the ſubſtances, or how their accidentes were kept or vnderpropt without ſubſtances, and ſo ſubiectes to be in. And if it were granted then that Chriſt to exempt and to preſerue his bodie from theſe inconueniences remoues it away before any of theſe can fal out vntounto it, yet then they graunt that the beſt ſhift that their popiſh Chriſt hath in this caſe is to runne away or to giuegive place. Such a Chriſt may become ſuch kinde of Chriſtians; but ſurely the wiſe hearted Chriſtians would be loth to truſt to ſuch a Chriſt for their ſaluation whoſe beſt ſhift is thus to flie that a Mouſe eate him not; and I would aduiſe them not to truſt themſelues too much to ſuch a daſtardly Chriſt. I would thinke that they ſhould & would rather hold that he driues all theſe away, then that indeede he ſhould be driuen away of any of them: and that therefore when any ſuch thing ſeemeth to fall out otherwiſe, eyther the prieſt conſecrated not well, and ſo failed and came ſhort of tranſubſtantiation, or that the ſences are deceiued in thinking any ſuch thing in hauehave happened. But ſeeing they like better to prouide for their Chriſt by his ſuddaine departure, I would hauehave them to tell mee, p. 302whether they worke a greater miracle in tranſubſtantiating breade and wine into him, or theſe kinde of cattell in traſubſtantiating him againe into the old bread and wine; And I would be glad once to here a ſubſtantiall reaſon, why Chriſts wordes ſhould not, or did not proue as powerfull to driue the accidents away as the ſubſtance, or why they beleeuing, notwithſtanding Chriſts plaine wordes, that accidents of bread and wine remaine, becauſe the ſenſes telles them ſo, they ſhould not, or will not beleeue the ſame ſenſes, as plainly aſſuring them that the ſubſtances themſelues alſo remaine, that therefore they are there alſo. But what ſhould I trouble my ſelfe by reaſon and ſenſe to confute them, which as it ſhould ſeeme hauehave herein, for the maintenance of their owne wilful conceit, pride, pompe & cōmoditie, loſt both ſenſe, reaſon, and religion. Notwithſtanding to all ſuch as hauehave theſe, I truſt I hauehave ſaid ſufficient, to make not onelyonly the verity of our owne doctrine, touching this Sacrament, ſufficiently to appeare, but alſo to the full diſplaying & diſgraſing for euer with ſuch of the vanity of both theſe our aduerſaries herein. Wherefore to returne to my text, and ſo to goe on againe p. 303therewith, I hope yet by this that I hauehave ſaide of this matter, you now plainly perceiue, that notwithſtanding the doctrine and vſe of this Sacrament, the vnion and communion that we muſt ſeeke to hauehave with Chriſt, though it be true & reall in reſpect of him and vsus, the perſons & things to be vnited; that yet it is not groſſe & carnall, to be attained vntounto by the inſtruments or members of our bodie at all, as theſe our aduerſaries teach: but that by the worde & Sacraments, God offers him vntounto vsus, and by his Spirit communicateth him vntounto vsus, after a ſpirituall and miſticall manner, and that we by faith wrought and nouriſhed in vsus by this his Spirit and meanes, feed vponupon to our euerlaſting ſaluation.