The Way to True Peace and Rest, Sermon 5

The Way to True Peace and Rest · Sermon 5

p. 116THE FIFTH SERMON, VPONUPON THE LORDS SVPPER.

1. COR. 11.23.

For I hauehave receiued of the Lord, that which I also hauehave deliuered vntounto you: to wit, that the Lord Iesus in the night that he was betrayed, tooke Bread, &c.

WE hauehave heard (wel-beloued in Christ Iesus) in our last exercise, what names were giuen to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well in the Scriptures as by the Ancients of the Latine and East Churches: we heard the chiefe ends wherefore, and whereunto this holy Sacrament was at first instituted: we heard the things that were contained in this Sacrament, what they were, how they are coupled, how they are deliuered, and how they are receiued: we heard also some obiections that might be obiected to the contrarie of this doctrine: we p. 117heard them propounded, and as God gaue the grace, refuted: we heard how the faithfull soule is said to eate Christs body, and drinke Christs bloud: We heard the manner how Christ is, or can be receiued of vsus. And we concluded in this poynt: That Christ Iesus the Sauiour of mankinde, our Sauiour, cannot be perceiued nor yet receiued, but by a spirituall way and apprehension. Neither the flesh of Christ, nor the bloud of Christ, nor Christ himselfe, can be perceiued but by the eye of faith; can be receiued but by the mouth of faith; nor can be layd hold on, but by the hand of faith.

Now faith is a spirituall thing: for faith is the gift of God, powred downe into the hearts and minds of men and women, wrought in the soule of eueryevery one, and that by the mighty working and operation of the holy Spirit. So the onelyonly way to lay hold on Christ being by faith, and faith of it owne nature being spirituall, it followeth therefore that there is no way to lay hold on Christ but a spirituall way: there is not a hand to fasten on Christ but a spirituall hand, there is not a mouth to digest Christ but a spirituall mouth. The Scriptures familiarly by all these termes describe the nature and efficacy of faith.

We are said to eate the flesh of Christ by faith, and to drinke his bloud by faith, in this Sacrament:How we are said to eate the flesh, and drinke the bloud of Christ. chiefly in doing of two things: First, in calling to our remembrance the bitter death and passion of Christ, the bloud that he shed vponupon the crosse, the Supper which he instituted in remembrance of him, before he went to the Crosse: the commandement which he gaue: Do this in remembrance of me: I say, we eate his flesh, and drinke his bloud spiritually. First in this point, in recording and remembring faithfully how he died for vsus, how his bloud was shed vponupon the crosse. This is the first point, a point that cannot be remembred truly, except it be wrought by the mighty power of the holy Spirit. The second poynt of the spirituall eating standeth in this, That I and eueryevery one of you beleeue firmely, that he died for me in particular: That his bloud was shed on the p. 118crosse, for a ful remission and redemption of me and my sins. The chiefe and principall point of the eating of Christ his flesh & drinking of his bloud, standeth in beleeuing firmly that that flesh was deliuered to death for my sinnes; that that bloud of his was shed for the remission of my sinnes: and except eueryevery soule come neere to himselfe, and firmely consent and agree, and be perswaded, that Christ died for him: that soule can not be saued, that soule can not eate the flesh, nor drinke the bloud of Christ. Then the eating of the flesh, and drinking of the bloud of Christ, standeth in a faithfull memorie, in a firme belief, and in a true applying of the merits of the death and passion of Christ, to my owne conscience in particular.

There were sundry things obiected against this kind of receiuing: I will not insist to repeate them: But beside all the obiections which ye heard obiected against this kinde of spirituall receiuing by faith, they say, If Christ his flesh nor his bloud be not perceiued, nor receiued, but by the Spirit, by faith in the Spirit: then say they, ye receiue him but by an imagination: if he be not receiued carnally nor corporally, but onelyonly by the Spirit and by faith; then is he not receiued but by way of imagination, conceite, and fantasie. So they account faith an imagination of the minde, a fantasie and opinion, fleeting in the hearts of men. I cannot blame them to thinke so of faith: For as none can iudge of the sweetenesse of hony, but they that hauehave tasted of it: so there is none can discerne nor iudge of the nature of faith, but they that hauehave felt it, and tasted in their hearts what it is. And if they had tasted and felt in their soules, what faith brings with it; alas, they would not call that spirirituall Iewell, and onelyonly …ewell of the soule, an imagination. They call it an imagination: and the Apostle describing it, Heb. 11.1. calleth it a substance and substantiall ground: Marke how well these two agree, An imagination, and a substantiall ground. They call it an vncertaine opinion, fleeting in the braine and fantasie of man: He calleth it an euidence and demonstration, in the same definition. See how directly p. 119contrary, the Apostle and they are, in the nature of faith. VponUpon this they infer, that as it is true in generall, he can not be deliuered nor giuen, but that same way that he is receiued; and looke what way any thing is receiued, the same way it is giuen and deliuered: So (as they say) he being receiued by way of imagination, he is also in their fantasie, giuen and deliuered by way of imagination. For if he be not giuen, say they, to thy hand, to thy mouth, nor to thy stomack corporally: he cannot be giuen but by an imagination and fantasticall opinion. The reason that moueth them to thinke that Christ cannot be theirs, nor giuen to them truly in effect and really, except he be giuen carnally, is this: That thing which is so far absent and distant from vsus as the heauen is from the earth, cannot be said to be giuen vsus, nor to be ours: But by our owne confession, say they to vsus, Christ his body is as farre absent from vsus as the heauen is from the earth: Therefore Christ his body, nor his flesh, cannot be giuen vntounto vsus, except by way of imagination, and so not truly nor in effect. This argument framed in this sort, would at the first sight seeme to be of some force. But let vsus examine the proposition of it: The proposition is this; That thing which is so farre absent from vsus as the heauen is from the earth, cannot be said to be deliuered to vsus, to be giuen to vsus, or any wayes to be ours.

Now whether is this proposition true or false? I say, this proposition is vntrue, and the contrarie most true. A thing may be giuen to vsus, and may become ours, though the thing in person it selfe be as farre distant from vsus as the heauen is from the earth. And how proue I this? What maketh any thing to be ours? What maketh any of you esteeme a thing to be giuen vntounto you? Is it not a title? Is it not a iust right to that thing? If ye hauehave a iust right giuen vntounto you, by him who hath power to giuegive it and a sure title, confirmed to you by him who hath the power; though the thing that he giueth vntounto you, be not deliuered into your hands, yet by the right and title which he granteth to you, is not the thing yours? There is no doubt of it, for it is not the p. 120neernes of the thing to my body & to my hand, that maketh the thing mine; for it may be in mine hand, and yet not belong to me. Neyther is it the distance nor absence of the thing that makes it not to be mine, but it may be farre absent from me and yet be mine, becaue the title is mine, and because I hauehave gotten a right to it from him who hath the power to giuegive it. So then this ground is true, It is a sure title and a iust right that maketh a thing, though it be far distant from vsus, to be ours. But so it is, that a liuelie and true faith in the bloud and death of Christ, maketh vsus to hauehave a sure title and a good right to the flesh and bloud of Christ, and to his merites: looke what he merited by his death, & shedding of his bloud vponupon the crosse, all that together with himselfe also appertaineth to me, and that by a title and a right which I hauehave gotten to him, of God; which is faith: And the surer that my title is, the more sure am I of the thing that is giuen me by the title. Now this Sacrament of the Lords Supper, was instituted to confirme our title, to seale vp our right which we hauehave to the bodie and bloud, to the death and passion of Christ: and so the bodie of Christ is said to be giuen to vsus, the bloud of Christ is said to be deliuered to vsus, when our title which we hauehave of him, of his death, of his bodie and bloud, is confirmed in our harts. For this Sacrament is instituted for the growth and increase of our faith, for the increase of our holinesse and sanctification: which faith the greater that it is in our hearts, the more sure are we, that Christ his death appertaineth to vsus. I grant as I hauehave said, that the flesh of Christ is not deliuered into my hndes, his flesh is not put into my mouth, nor entreth into my stomacke: Yet God forbid that thou shouldst say, He is not truly giuen, although Christs flesh be not put into thy hand, nor mouth of thy body: and wherfore should it? Hath he not appointed bread & wine for the nourishment of the bodie & may not that content you? Are they not sufficiēt to nourish you to this earthly & temporall life? Hath he not appointed Christ to be deliuered to the inward mouth of thy soule, to be giuen into the p. 121hand of thy soule, that thy soule may seede on him and be quickned with that life wherewith the Angels liue, wherewith the Sonne of God and God himselfe liue?

So the flesh of Christ is not appointed to nourish thy bodie, but to nourish thy soule in the hope, yea in the growth of that immortall life: and therefore I say, though the flesh of Christ be not deliuered into the hand of thy body, yet it is deliuered to that part that it should nourish: the soule is that part that it should nourish, therefore to the soule it is deliuered.

Yea that Bread and that Wine are no more really deliuered to the bodie and to the hand of the bodie, then the flesh of Christ is deliuered to the soule and to the hand and mouth of the soule, which is faith: therefore craue no more a carnall deliuerie, nor thinke not vponupon a carnall receiuing.

Thou must not thinke that either God giueth the flesh of Christ to the mouth of the bodie; or that thou by the mouth of thy bodie receiuest the flesh of Christ: For ye must vnderstand this principle in the Scriptures of God; our soules cannot be ioyned with the flesh of Christ, nor the flesh of Christ cannot be ioyned with our soules but by a spirituall band. Not by a carnall band of bloud and alliance; not by the touching of his flesh with our flesh: but he is conioyned with vsus by a spirituall band; that is, by the power and vertue of his holy Spirit. And therefore the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 12.13. That by the meanes of his holy Spirit, all we who are faithfull men and women, are baptized into one bodie of Christ. That is, we are conioyned and fastened with one Christ by the meanes, saith he, of one Spirit: not by a carnall band or any grosse coniunction, but onelyonly by the band of the holy Spirit.

That same holy Spirit that is in him, is in eueryevery one of vsus in some measure:Our vnion with Christ by one and the same Spirit. and in respect one Spirit is in him and in vsus, therefore we are accounted all to be one bodie, and to be members of one spirituall and mysticall bodie. And in the same verse the Apostle saith, We are all made to drinke p. 122into one and the selfe same Spirit: that is, we are made to drinke of the bloud of Christ. And this bloud is no other thing but the quickning vertue and power that floweth from Christ, and from the merits of his death: we are made all to drinke of that bloud when we drinke of the liuely power and vertue that floweth out of that bloud.

So there is not a band that can couple my soule with the flesh of Christ, but onelyonly a spirituall band and a spirituall vnion. And therefore it is that the Apostle 1. Cor. 6.17. saith, He that is ioyned vntounto the Lord is one Spirit. And Iohn saith, That which is borne of the Spirit, is Spirit. So it is onelyonly by the participation of the holy Spirit that we are conioyned with the flesh and bloud of Christ Iesus.

That carnall band whether it be the band of bloud which runneth through one race, or the carnall touching of flesh with flesh, that carnall band (I say) was neuer esteemed of by Christ. In the time that he was conuersant here vponupon earth, he respected nothing that band: for as he witnessed himselfe by his owne words, he neuer had that carnall band in any kind of reuerence or estimation in respect of the spirituall band.

But as for the spirituall band whereby we are coupled with him by one Spirit; he euer esteemed of this band in the time that he was conuersant on earth, & in a word, he hath left the praise and commendations of the same.

To let you see how lightly he esteemed of the carnall band of bloud and alliance, which we esteeme so much, ye may see in the eight of Luke, 20.21. for there they coming to him, say, Master, thy Mother and thy brethren stand without, and would see thee: ye shall heare his answer vntounto them, how little he esteemed of that carnall band; in the 21. verse, in a manner denying that band, he saith; My Mother and my brethren, are those which heare the word of God and do it. As if he would hauehave said, It is not that carnall band y^t I esteeme: it is not that carnall coniunction that I reuerence: it is the spirituall coniunction by the participation of his holy Spirit; whereby we are mooued to heare the word of God, to giuegive p. 123reuerence to it and obey it.

This carnall band was neuer profi…able, as that in the 8 of Luke doth plainly testifie: for if the touching of Christs fl…sh had bene profitable, the multitude, whereof mention is made in that Chapter, that thrusted and preased him, had bene the better by their carnall touching. But so it is that there was neuer any of them the better by their carnall touching; therefore the carnall touching profiteth nothing. Saith not Christ himselfe, Iohn 6.63. (to draw them from that sinister confidence they had in the flesh onelyonly) My flesh profiteth nothing; It is the Spirit that quickneth? To touch him by the holie Spirit and by faith in thy soule, this touching by faith hath euer bene profitable, and we hauehave a plaine example of it in the same Chapter.

Euen so the poore woman that had long bene diseased with a bloudie issue the space of twelue yeares, and had wasted and consumed the greatest part of her substance in seeking remedie; she found no helpe by the naturall and bodily Physition: at the last by vertue of the holie Spirit working faith in her heart, she vnderstands and conceiues that she is able to recouer the health of her bodie and the health of her soule from Christ Iesus, who came to saue both bodie and soule. And vponupon this perswasion which she had in her heart, that Christ could cure both bodie and soule, she came vntounto him; and as the Text saith, she preased through the multitude to come to him: and when she was come, it is not said that she touched his flesh with her hand (in case the Papists would ascribe the vertue which came out of him to her carnall touching:) but it is said, that she touched onelyonly the hemme of his garment with her hand; and with faith, which is the hand of the soule, she touched her Sauiour God and man. And to let you vnderstand that she touched him by faith, he saith to her at the last, Go thy way, thy faith hath saued thee.

She touched him not so soone by faith, but incontinent there came a power out of him: which power and vertue she felt by the effect of it in her soule; and our Sauiour felt it p. 124when it went from him. The effect whereby she felt it, was the health of her soule: and the effect whereby he felt it, was the going from him. And so soone as he felt it go from him, he saith, Who is it that hath touched me? Peter (who was euer most suddaine) answereth and saith, Thou art thronged and thrusted by the multitude, & yet thou askest who hath touched thee.

Our Sauiour answers againe, It is not that touching that I speake of; it is another kind of touching. There is one hath touched me who hath drawne a vertue and power out of me: the multitude taketh no vertue from me. The poore woman thinking she had done amisse, and perceiuing she could not be hid, came trembling and said; I hauehave done it. He answered her at the last and said, Depart in peace; thy faith hath saued thee: Thy faith hath drawne out a vertue and power from me, that hath made both thy soule and thy bodie whole.

So that this touching of Christ hath euer bene profitable; is & shall be profitable: like as the touching of Christ with the corporall hand hath neuer bene, is not, nor euer shall be profitable. And why? Christ is not appointed to be a carnall head, to be set vponupon the necks of our bodies, that he may do the office of a carnall head thereunto, to furnish naturall motions and senses to our bodies. No, the Scriptures call not Christ a naturall head, but the Scriptures call him a spirituall head, to be set vponupon the necke of our soules: that is, to be conioyned with our soules; that out of him into our soules may distill holy motions, heauenly senses; and that there may flow out of him to vsus, a spirituall and heauenly life.

Then the Scriptures call him a spirituall head, as they call vsus a spirituall bodie: and as the life which we get from him is spirituall, so all our coniunction with him is spirituall. And in respect he worketh that same operation in my soule, which the carnall head doth in my bodie, therefore he is called a spirituall head: therefore he is called the head of his Church, because he furnisheth her with spirituall motion p. 125and senses, which is the life of the Church.

So to be short, there is nothing in this coniunction carnall; there is nothing grosse in it; there is nothing that may be compassed by our naturall iudgement and vnderstanding. And therefore whosoeuer would attaine to any small in-sight of this spirituall coniunction betweene Christ and vsus, of necessitie he must humble himselfe & earnestly pray for the Spirit; otherwise it is not possible to get any vnderstanding, no not the least apprehension how the flesh of Christ and we are conioyned, except we hauehave some light giuen vsus by the Spirit; that is, except our hearts be wakened by the mighty working of the Spirit of Christ, this shall remaine as a dead & closed letter vntounto vsus. So ye are to craue that the Lord in his merciemercy would waken you,Exhortation. illuminate your vnderstandings, and make you to hauehave a spirituall light to discerne of these spirituall things. Next, ye must studie and be carefull to remoue all vaine cogitations & earthly fantasies: when ye come to heare so high a matter, ye must cast off all filthie thoughts, ill motions and care of the world; and ye must shake off all things that clog your hearts. Thirdly, ye must come with a purpose to heare the word, to giuegive diligent eare to the word, & with a sanctified heart to receiue it; with a purpose to grow and increase in holinesse, as well in bodie as in soule all the daies of your life.

And coming with this purpose, no question, the holie Spirit shall reueale those things to you which ye want. And though this word passe and bring no commoditie for the present, yet the holie Spirit hereafter shall reueale to thee the truth of that which thou hast now heard. This then is the end of all; Be present in your hearts and minds, and let your soules be emptied of all the cares of the world, that they may receiue that comfort which is offered in the hearing of the word.

Now I come to the defining of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.The definition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I call this Sacrament, An holy Seale, annexed to the couenant of grace and merciemercy in Christ. A seale to be p. 126ministred publikely, alwaies according to the holy institution of Christ Iesus: that by the lawful ministery thereof, the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the thing signified, may stand: and this vnion standing, Christ Iesu… who is the thing signified, is as truly deliuered to the increase of our spirituall nourishment, as the signes are giuen and deliuered to the body, for our temporall nourishment.

Why this Sacr…ment is called a Seale.Now let vsus examine the words and parts of this definition. First of all, I call this Sacrament a Seale; because this Sacrament serueth to the same vse to our soules, that a common seale doth to a common Euidence. As the seale which is annexed to the Euidence, confirmes & seales vp the truth contained in the Euidence: so this Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, confirmeth and sealeth vp the truth of mercy and grace, contained in the couenant of mercy and grace: for this respect it is called a seale.

Why it is called an holy Seale.It is called An holy Seale. Why? Because it is taken from profane vse, whereunto that bread serued before; and that bread is applyed to an holy vse. There is a power giuen to that bread, to signifie the precious body of Christ Iesus, to represent the nourishing and feeding of our soules. And in respect it serueth now in the Sacrament to so holy an vse, therfore I call it an holy seale. This is not my word; it is the Apostles, Rom. 4.11. where he giueth the Sacrament the same name and calleth it a seale. And further, if the wisedome of Christ in his Apostle had bene followed, and if men had not inuented new names of their owne for this Sacrament, but had contented & satisfied themselues with the names which God hath giuen by his Apostle, & that Christ himselfe hath giuen to this Sacrament; I am assured, none of these controuersies and debates (which neuer will ceasse) had fallen out: but where men will go about to be wiser then God, and go beyond God in deuising names which he neuer gaue, vponupon mens owne inuention such debates hauehave fallen out. A lesson by the way, that no flesh presume to be wiser then God, but let them stoupe & keepe the names which God hath giuen to this Sacrament.

p. 127Thirdly, I say, annexed to the Couenant;Why the seale is said to be annexed to the couenant. annexed and hung to the Charter: because it cannot be called a seale properly except it be hung to an Euidence. What it is by nature the same it remaineth, and no more, if it be not annexed to some Euidence: it is onelyonly the hanging of it to the Euidence that maketh men account it a seale; not being esteemed except it be hanged to the Euidence. Euen so it is here; if this Sacrament be not ministred and ioyned to the preached word, to the preaching of the couenant of mercy and grace, it cannot be a seale; but what it is by nature, it is no more. As by nature it is but a common peece of bread; so it is no more if it be not annexed to the preaching of the word, and ministred therewith as Christ hath commanded. Therfore I say, the seale must be annexed and hanged to the Euidence, to the preaching of the word, for the confirming of the Euidence; otherwise it is not a seale. But it is not so with the Euidence which is the word of God: for ye know any Euidence will make faith though it want a seale; and it will serue to make a right, if it be subscribed without a seale: but the seale without the Euidence auaileth nothing. Euen so it is with the word of God: though the Sacraments be not annexed to the word, yet the word will serue the turne: it serueth vsus to get Christ, it serueth to ingender and beget faith in vsus, and maketh vsus to grow vp in faith. But the seale without the word can serue vsus to no holy vse: therefore I say, the seale must be annexed to the word preached, to the couenant of mercy and grace.

Now it followeth in the definition,Why the Sacrament should be ministred publikely. First reason. that this seale must be ministred publikely. Wherefore say I publikly? To exclude all priuate administration of this Sacrament. For if this Sacrament be administred to any priuately, it is not a Sacrament. Why? Because the Apostle calleth this Sacrament a Communion: therefore if ye administer it priuately, ye lose the Sacrament. For this Sacrament is a Communion of the body and bloud of Christ: therefore of necessity it must be by way of communication; and so the action must be publikely ministred.

p. 128Secondly, this Sacrament must be publikely ministred, because Christ Iesus who is the thing signified in this Sacrament,Second reasō. is no such thing as pertaineth to one man onelyonly: if this were so, he might be priuatly giuen and ministred. But seeing Christ which is the thing signified in the Sacrament, is a common thing belonging to eueryevery faithfull man and woman, therefore he ought to be commonly giuen to all, in a cōmon action, in a society, & congregation of the faithfull.

Thirdly, this Sacrament is a Thansgiuing to God the Father for his benefites. Now it appertaineth not to one or two, to thanke God onelyonly; but as we are all partakers of his temporall and spirituall benefits, so we ought all of vsus publikely to giuegive him thankes for the same. Therefore I say, in the definition, this seale ought to be publikely, and not priuately ministred; as the Papists do in their priuate Masses.

This Seale must be publikely ministred according to Christ his institution. Wherefore say I Christ his institution, more then mans institution or Angels institution? Why keepe I to Christ his institution? Because man hath not power to institute or make a Sacrament:Why this seale must be ministred according to Christ his institution. None hath power to institute a Sacrament but God on…ly. because an Angell hath not power to make or institute a Sacrament. For none hath power to make or institute a Sacrament, but he y^t hath power to giuegive Christ, who is the thing signified in the Sacrament. But so it is that none hath power to giuegive Christ but either the Father or himselfe: therfore none hath power to make or institute a Sacrament, but either the Father or the Sonne: only God must make a Sacrament. Secondly, this Sacrament is a part of Gods seruice and worship: but so it is that none hath power to appoynt any part of his seruice, or prescribe any part of his worship, but onelyonly God himselfe: therefore none can make a Sacrament but God himselfe. There is no Prince wil be contented to be serued after another mans fantasie: but he will prescribe his seruice according vntounto his owne pleasure: how much more is it meete that God should appoint his own seruice & worship? Therfore there is neither man nor Angell, hath power to institute any part of the seruice of God.

p. 129The Sacraments are a part of his seruice: therfore there is no Angel nor man hath power to institute a Sacrament. The greatest stile that any man can hauehave in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, is that stile which the Apostle giues them, 1. Cor. 4.1. There we are called Stewar…s and Dispensers of the graces of God, Ministers of those mysteries and holy things. It followeth then, that we are not Authors, Creators and makers of them, but onelyonly Ministers and Dispensers of the Sacraments. So it is euident, that no man nor creature hath power to make a Sacrament. Then it must be according to the institution of Christ, his institution must be kept: looke what he said, what he did, what he commanded thee to do; all that must be said, done and obeyed. If thou leauest one iot of that vndone which he commanded thee to do, thou peruertest the institution: for there is nothing left in register of that institution but it is essentiall.

So in the celebration of Christs institution we must take heede to whatsoeuer he said, did or commanded to be done: Thou must first say whatsoeuer he said, and then do whatsoeuer he did. For the Ministery of the Sacrament must follow after the word. First thou must say that which Christ commanded thee to say, and thou must teach that which he commanded thee to teach: and then minister the Sacrament.We call the word in the Sacrament, the whole institution. Then to keepe this institution we must begin at the saying, and say whatsoeuer Christ commanded vsus; then after, faithfully to do all that which he commanded to be done. Then I call the word, the whole institution of Christ Iesus, preached and proclaimed, denounced distinctly, clearely and sensibly to the people in such sort, that if we leaue any kind of circumstance or ceremonie of this institution vndone, we peruert the whole action.

It is agreed vponupon and condescended vntounto betweene vsus who celebrate this institution,Word and element must concurre in the constitution of a Sacrament. and all the sects in the world who hauehave separated themselues from this institution, That two things are necessarie, and must concurre in the nature and constitution of a Sacrament. To wit, there must be a p. 130word, and there must be an element concurring. There is not a sect that granteth not this, That the word must concur with the element, before there can be a Sacrament. Though they easily admit this generall, wherein we agree well with them, yet when it cometh to the speciall, and that we enter into particular in the handling and treating of the word; how well soeuer we agree in the generall, yet in the particular we are farre asunder. For when we come to dispute and reason on these particulars; First, what we meane by the word: Secondly, how this word ought to be intreated: Thirdly, what vertue this word hath: Fourthly, how farre the vertue of this word doth extend it selfe: And last of all, to whom the word ought to be directed and pronounced: In all these particulars we are as far asunder as euer we seemed to agree in the generall.

What we meane by the word in the Sacrament.I leaue to meddle with any other sect, but will deale with the Papists onelyonly, because we hauehave most to do with them: And first of all we are to vnderstand what we meane by the word, and what they meane by it. We by the word (as I hauehave said) vnderstand the whole institution of Christ Iesus, whatsoeuer he said, or did, or commanded to be done, without adding or diminishing, or alteration of the meaning or sense of the word: This we meane by the word in the Sacrament.

What the Papists vnderstand by the word in the Sacramēt.Now what vnderstand the Papists by the word? They preach not the institution of Christ, nor take the whole institution as he left it. But in place thereof, they select and chuse out of his institution foure or fiue words, and they make the whole vertue of the institution to consist in the foure or fiue words. And it were nothing if they would content themselues with these words, because they are the words of the institution. But they adde to the words, they take from the words, and alter the meaning of the same words at their pleasure. That ye may know this; In their Masse which they call the Lords Supper, I will let you see the substance of it: I will deuide their Masse into substantiall and accidentall things. To the substance of the Masse there p. 131are three things required. There must of necessitie be a Priest, that is to say, such a one as takes vponupon him the office of our Mediatour Christ Iesus, to interceede betweene God and man. Secondly, to the substance of the Masse is required, that the Priest offer the bodie and bloud of Christ. We come here to receiue the same things: There the Priest offers them to God the Father. Thirdly, by this worke (say they) they obtaine all good things: by this worke wrought they obtaine remission of sinnes as well to the dead as to the quicke; but in speciall they obtaine remission of sinnes to the Priest who is the distributer, & to him to whom the Priest applieth that sacrifice: And as for the rest of the Church who are absent, they obtaine this remission of their sinnes by this worke generally. These three things are necessarie to the substance of the Masse. As for the accidents that must concurre to the making of a Masse, they are of two sorts: Some of them are alwaies necessarie, without the which that action cannot be: againe, some are not necessarie, and the action may be without them, but not without a deadly sinne. These things that are necessarie, concerne partly the Priest, and partly the action it selfe. The accidents that are necessarie to the Priest are of two sorts: One sort are such, as without the which he cannot be a Priest; The other sort such, without the which he cannot be free from deadly sin. The things without the which he cannot be a Priest, are these: Except he hauehave a power giuen of his Bishop to consecrate, which power is iustified by the vnction and shauing of his crowne: Except againe, he hauehave power to speake, and that the roofe of his mouth be whole that he may speake, he cannot be a Priest. These two are alwaies necessarie, and concurre to the person. Other things againe are not so necessarie; as that the Priest must be free from suspension, from cursing, deadly sinne, and all Ecclesiasticall paine and censures. These things are necessarie to the person. There are againe two things necessarie to the action: One sort without the which the action cannot be; without the Lords prayer it cannot be, without the fiue words of the institution it p. 132cannot be. Other things againe are not so necessarie; as the consecration of the place where the Masse is said, the Altar stone, the blessing of the Chalice, the water, the singing, he that should helpe to say Masse, and the rest. So they and we in no sort agree concerning the word what is meant by it. The second point is, how this wo…d ought to be intreated, wherein we are as farre asunder: we say, the word taken as hath bene said, for the whole institution, ought to be intreated after this manner. First, there ought to be a lawfull Pastor, who hath his calling of God to deliuer it. And this Pastor ought to deliuer the word lawfully; what is that? he ought to preach it, to proclaime it publikely, with a plaine speech to denounce it: he ought to open vp and declare all the parts of it, what is the peoples part, & what is his owne part, how he ought to deliuer and distribute that Bread and that Wine, how the people ought to receiue at his hands that Bread and that Wine, to informe their faith how they ought to receiue Christs bodie and bloud signified by that Bread and Wine: As also he ought to teach them how they should come with reuerence vntounto that Table, and communicate with the pretious bodie and bloud of Christ. This he ought to do in a familiar language, that the people may vnderstand him, that they may heare him, that they may perceiue and lay vp in their hearts the things that he speaketh. For what auaileth it you to heare a thing whispered and not spoken out? or if it be spoken out, what auaileth it you to heare it if ye vnderstand it not? For except ye heare Christ in a familiar and plaine language, ye cannot vnderstand: and except ye vnderstand, it is impossible for you to beleeue: and without beliefe there is no application of Christ: and except ye beleeue and apply Christ to your selues, your coming to the Sacrament is in vaine. So of necessitie if …his Sacrament be lawfully handled, the Pastor must preach the institution of Christ that it may be heard, and in a familiar language that it may be vnderstood, in such sort that the faithfull people may be informed how to receiue, and the Minister may know his part, how to deliuer and distribute.

p. 133This I say, should be the right handling of the holy institution of this Sacrament.

Now what do they? In place of a Minister, Pastor or Bishop (call him as you please) who is lawfully called of God, they substitute a priest, surrogate an hireling, who hath no calling or office now in y^e Church of God. For the office of a priest as they vse their priesthood, is no other thing but the office of Christ Iesus, the office of the Mediatour betwixt God & vsus: for they make their priests daily to offer vp Christ Iesus, to the Father. Now this is the Mediatour Christ his office, and he did it once for all, once for euer, saith the Apostle: so that they hauehave no entrance to do this ouer againe: and in respect that their priests do this againe which Christ hath done already, they do it without command, they hauehave no warrant in the word of God. And if they had warrant for their calling in the word of God, yet they handle the Sacrament amisse: for whereas they should speake forth cleerly, they whisper and coniure the elements by a certaine kinde of whispering. Whereas they should speake it in a knowne language that the people may vnderstand, they speake in an vnknowne language: and though they spake it in a knowne and familiar tongue, yet in that they whisper it, the people cannot be the better. And what shall I say? Seeing they thus handle the word though it be the very institution it selfe, yet they so spoyle it in the handling that it is not an holy Sacrament. Then we differ as much in the second poynt, how that word ought to be handled and intreated.

Now the third poynt is what vertue this word hath,The third head in controuersie. how farre the vertue of this word extendeth it selfe: In this point we grant and acknowledge that the word hath a vertue: & the word taken as hath bene said, worketh some what euen toward the same elements of bread and wine; for we acknowledge that those element by the vertue of this word are changed, not in their substance and naturall properties: but we grant that the elements are changed, in a quality which they had not before; in such sort that these elements p. 134are taken from the common vse whereunto they serued before, and by the institution of Christ they are applyed vntounto an other holy vse. Marke how farre the holy vse differs from the common vse; there is as great difference betwixt the elements this day in the action, and the thing that they were yesterday. For I grant that the elements are changed; and yet this change proceedeth not of the nature of the elements, from an inclosed vertue supposed to be in the words, nor from the whispering of the words, but it proceedes from the will of Christ, from the ordinance and appointment of Christ, set downe in his owne institution: for that thing is holy, which God calleth holy; and that thing is profane, which God calleth profane.

To let you vnderstand how these signes are made holy, it is necessary that these two things be considered. First what he is that makes them holy,How the elements are sanctified. whether God▪ Angell, or man. Secondly, whosoeuer he be that maketh them holy, by what meanes and way he maketh them holy. And by the consideration of these two, we shall come to the consideration and right viewing of the sanctification of the Elements.

For the First, we say that God is onelyonly he that may make a thing which was common to be holy. So we say, that God by his will and ordinance declared and set downe in his word, hath made the things that were common, by his appoyntment to be holy. As for the way and meanes whereby they are made holy, it is the word of God, the institution of Christ the wil of Christ, declared in his institution, that maketh them holy. For the preaching and opening of the word & institution of Christ, lets vsus see that God hath made these things holy; and not onelyonly that he hath made them holy, but letteth vsus see an holy manner how they should be vsed, in what place, at what time, with what heart, and to what end. So it is the will Christ, declared in his institution, whereby the things that were common before are now made holy. There are two other things also which make the same elements holy: and these two are vsed in this institution. p. 135There is prayer and thanksgiuing, which make the creatures of God holy to our vse: whereas otherwise if we receiue the good creatures of God, like dogs, and thanke him not for them, it is a sure token that they were neuer sanctified to our vse.

By prayer we obtaine grace and strength from God to vse the creatures, and this whole action, holily and lawfully as it should be. And therefore not onelyonly in this holy action should we begin with God & with inuocation of his name, but in all actions in the world we begin in the name of God. So it is the will of God that prayer, and thansgiuing conioyned with the elements, do make them holy. All these three contained in the action of the Lords Supper, make the Seales holy: For beside the will of God declared in the institution, in the Lords Supper we vse inuocation; and in this inuocation we vse thankesgiuing. The elements are not made holy by the word of God onelyonly, but by the vse of prayer and thankesgiuing, which three are the onelyonly meanes whereby these things are sanctified.

Now to expresse and lay forth the sanctification of the Elements:The word of blessing and thank…giuing vsed indifferently, expressed by the other. The Euangelists and the Apostle Paul vse indifferently the word, To blesse and to giuegive thankes, and commonly they put the one for the other: For ye may see that Marke and Paule vse the word Blesse: Mathew and Luke, vse the word to giuegive thankes, and all in one signification: And Marke himselfe in the 14. of his Gospell, 22. verse, speaking of the same action of the Lords Supper, vseth the the word to Blesse, and in the 23. verse he vseth the word …o GiueGive thankes, and both in one signification to let you see, that the Apostle, Christ himselfe, and the Euangelists, vse the word to Blesse, and to GiueGive thankes indifferently, to signifie the sanctification and consecration of the elements. Except ye take the one for the other, it will be hard to gather any good meaning out of the Apostles wordes: for I remember the Apostle 1. Corinthians 10.16. sayth: The cup of blessing which we blesse; what is that? I take the word to signifie, as I hauehave said, which we blesse, that p. 136is, which we sanctifie and prepare by blessing. So to blesse and to giuegive thankes in the Lords Supper, signifie no other thing but to sanctifie: otherwise if ye take the word in another signification ye shall fall into an error; and why? God is said to blesse, and man is said to blesse: God is said to blesse when he giueth good things vntounto his creatures, for Gods blessing is euer effectuall; and therefore he is said to blesse when he giueth good thing. Man againe is said to blesse either priuately or publikely, when he craueth blessing at the hands of God for any man; when he blesseth in the name and at the commandement of God, any person or people. Now if ye ascribe blessing in any of these two significations to the cuppe, it is amisse: for we vse neyther to craue a blessing to insensible elements; nor yet to blesse them in the name of God: and God vseth to giuegive good things to the sonnes of men, and not to insensible creatures. Therefore we must needes vse the word Blesse, in the third signification, The cuppe of blessing which we blesse, that is, which we sanctifie and prepare by blessing. Thus farre we vnderstand, for the sanctification of the elements.

How the Papists sanctifie the outward Elements.Now let vsus see how they sanctifie the elements, and what is the forme of their consecration; so farre as I vnderstand of it, it consisteth in these fiue words: Hoc est enim corpus meum. It standeth in these fiue words, and in the whispering of them; for if you whisper them not, ye lose the fashion of incantation: for the thing which we call sanctifying, they call whispering: and the whispering of those fiue words, they call the consecration of the elements. And when the words are after this manner whispered, they presuppose such a secret and monstrous vertue to be inclosed in the syllables, that the vertue and power which floweth from the words, is able to chase away wholly the substance of the bread, so that the very bread and substance of it is altogether destroyed by this power. Secondly, that this power which floweth from these words, is able to fetch and pull downe another substance, to wit, the flesh and bloud of Christ Iesus that sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and p. 137is able to put it within the compasse of that bread. This is a strange and a great vertue, that not onelyonly will ouerthrow that substance, but put it within the compasse of that bread. The same fiue words whispered in this manner hauehave such a monstrous operation, say they, that they are able both to chase away the one substance, to pull downe another, and to put it within the compasse of that bread. We altogether denie that there is such a vertue in these words: for as I hauehave said before, we denie not that the word hath a vertue, but denie that there is such a vertue inclosed in the words: we denie the qualitie of the vertue, or that it floweth from such a fountaine. For we grant that the word hath a vertue; there is neuer a word that God speaketh here, but it hath a vertue ioyned with it: but we denie that this vertue is inclosed in the syllables, in the whispering or pronouncing of the words: for if there were such a vertue and power inclosed in the syllables, by the same reason it should follow, that there were a vertue in the figure & shape of the letters that make vp the words. Now there is no man will thinke that there is any vertue in the figure or shape of the letters: and there is as little vertue in the syllables or pronouncing of the words themselues. So we denie that there is any vertue inclosed in the syllables or resident in the word. But we say that there is a power conioyned with the word, and this power is not resident in the word, but is resident in the eternall word, in the essentiall word whereof Iohn the Euangelist maketh mention, Chap. 1. The word which was from the beginning, that is, the Sonne of God Christ Iesus. We say, there is not a dram weight of this vertue & power resident in anie creature y^t euer God created, but it is only resident in Christ Iesus: And therefore there floweth no vertue from the sillables, nor from the words that are spoken, but from Christ and his Spirit, who giueth the vertue to those words. So we differ in this; we say, that there is not any vertue resident in the sillables, we say that the sillables and pronouncing of the sillables worke nothing: but we say that the vertue is resident in the person of the Sonne of God, and he worketh p. 138by his owne word.

Now we say that there cannot be such a monstrou change, as to say the whispering of so many words should change the owne substance of the bread, pull downe the substance of the bodie of Christ, and put his bodie in so narrow a compasse, we say that cannot be. And this I shall proue by these three rules;Refutation of the doctrine transubstantiation, by three sorts of arguments. The first sort of argument. namely, By the veritie of the flesh of Christ Iesus; By the articles of our beliefe; And by the true end of the institution of this Sacrament. And so we shall see by Gods grace the infinite absurdities that follow vponupon their opinion.

The first principle that I lay is this; Seeing y^t Christ Iesus the Sonne of God in the time appointed, tooke true flesh of the wombe of the Virgin, & vnited himselfe with our nature in one personall vnion; to y^e end that our nature which fel altogether from integritie in the first Adam, might recouer the same in the second Adam: yea not onelyonly y^e same, but so much the greater as our second Adam excelleth the first in all degrees. And in respect he tooke on him a bodie like vntounto ours in all things (sinne excepted,) of necessitie it must follow, that the definition of a true bodie, and the inseparable properties thereof must be competent to him. But these are the inseparable properties; namely, to be in one certaine place, to be finite, circumscribed, visible, and palpable: for all these concurre (quarto modo, as the Logicians say) to a bodie; so that they cannot be separate from the subiect without the distraction thereof. Then I reason on this manner; A true humane bodie is in a certaine place; Christ Iesus bodie is a true humane bodie: therefore it is in a certaine place. I call a place a certaine condition of an instrumentall bodie, whereby it cometh to passe that where-euer the bodie be, of necessitie it is limited within that place; and while it is there, it cannot be elsewhere.

If you would hauehave the probation of my Proposition from the Doctors, reade Augustine to Dardanus, speaking of this same bodie of Christ. Take away a certaine roome from the bodies, and they shall be in no place; and if they be in no p. 139place, they are not. The same Augustine writing vponupon Iohn, in his 30. Treatise saith, The bodie in the which the Lord did arise, of necessitie must be in a place; but his diuine efficacie and nature is diffused eueryevery where. And in his third Eple he saith, How much soeuer the bodie be, or how little soeuer the bodie be, it behoueth to occupie the bounds of a place. And besides these, t…e historie of the Acts proueth most euidently Christ his bodie to be in a certaine place: as Acts 3.21. the words are these; Whom the heauens must containe, vntill the time that all things be restored, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets. Though I need not to insist in the probation of these things, yet I proceede. Secondly then I reason after this manner; A humane bodie is finite and circumscribed; but the bodie of Christ is a humane bodie. What warrant from the Doctors hauehave I for this? I leaue many purposely, and will alledge onelyonly Augustine, who writing to Dardanus, Belieue (saith he) Christ to be eueryevery where in that he is God; but onelyonly to be in heauen, according to the nature of a true bodie.

And in his 146. Epistle, I belieue, saith he, the bodie of Christ to be so in heauen as it was on the earth, when he went vp to heauen. But it was circumscribed in a certaine place on the earth. Ergo, it is so in the heauen. And consequently, it cannot be in the Masse-bread and in heauen both at one time. The last reason is this: A humane bodie is visible and palpable: but Christ hath a humane bodie, and he is corporally present, as they say: therefore Christ his bodie is visible and palpaple.

I proue my Proposition by Christ his owne words taken out of Luke 24.39. In the which place, to perswade the Apostles of the veritie of his bodie, and to proue euidently that it was not fantasticall, he vseth the argument taken from these two qualities, and he commandeth his Apostles to feele and see; giuing them thereby to vnderstand, that as these two senses are the most certaine of all the rest, so are they most able to discerne, whether he was a bodie or a Spirit. As if he would hauehave said, If I be visible and palpable, ye p. 140may be out of doubt that I hauehave a true bodie. For as the Poet saith, which Tertullian citeth also to this same purpose; Tangere enim, & tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res.

By these arguments it may be euidently seene, how this Transubstantiation may no way stand with the veritie of the bodie of Christ Iesus. And as it fights wi…h the flesh of Christ Iesus, so it repugnes dir…ctly the articles of our faith. For in our Beliefe we professe,Second sort of argument. that Christ ascended out of this earth to the heauen, where he sits at the right hand of the Father, where he gouerns and directs all things in heauen and earth; from the which place, he is to come at the last day to iudge the world.

This article teacheth vsus, that he hath changed his dwelling which he had amongst vsus on earth, and is ascended into the heauens, where he sits at the right hand of his Father, and shall remaine there (according to the testimonie of Peter, which I cited out of the Acts 3.21.) vntill the last day. If he sit at his Fathers right hand, and be to remaine in heauen vntill the last day, then is he not corporally in the bread. But the article of our beliefe saith, That he sitteth at the right hand of his Father: and Peter saith in that place, that the heauens must containe him vntill the last day. Therefore this Transubstantiation is directly against the articles of our Beliefe, and the manifest place of the Scripture.

Third sort of argument.Thirdly, it is opposite vntounto the end wherefore this Sacrament was instituted, and this is most euident: for the end of the Sacrament is spirituall, as the effect that floweth thereof is spirituall, and the instrument whereby this spirituall food is applyed to vsus, is also spirituall. But from a naturall and corporall presence, a spirituall effect can neuer flow: therefore the corporall and naturall presence of the body and bloud of Christ Iesus repugnes directly the end of this Sacrament: for the corporall presence must hauehave a corporall eating: of this eating followeth a digestion in the stomacke: and the thing that is digested in the stomacke is neuer able to feede my soule to life eternall. So this corporall presence must euer tend to a corporall end; which is p. 141directly contrary vntounto the end wherfore the Sacrament was instituted.

Further, if the bread were transubstantiate,Other arguments vntounto the same effect. it should become the thing signified; if it become the thing signified, this Sacrament should want a signe, and so it should not be a Sacrament: for eueryevery Sacrament, as ye hauehave head, is a signe. Now to say that the accidents of true bread, as the colour and the roundnesse of it, may serue as signes, that is more then folly: for betwene the signe and the thing signified, there must be a conformity: but there is no conformity betweene the accidents, and the body and bloud of Christ Iesus. For if that were so, the accidents behoued to nourish vsus corporally; as the body and bloud of Christ Ie- pointed to nourish vsus spiritually.

Againe, if the bread become the body & bloud of Christ Iesus, it should follow that he had a body without bloud; for he hath instituted another signe besides to represent his bloud. Also if there had bene …uch a wondefull thing as they speake of, in this Sacrament, there would hauehave bene plaine mention made thereof in the Scripture: for God himselfe neuer works a notable worke but he declares it either openly or more secretly in the Scripture, that thereby he may be glorified in his wonderfull workes. As ye may reade in the Euangelist Iohn 2.8. where the water was changed into wine; Gene. 2.22. where the rib of Adam, was changed into Heua: Exodus 7.10. where Aarons rodde was turned into a Serpent: there ye see that changing is manifestly expressed. Therefore I say, if there had bene such a monstrous change in these elements of …he Supper as they affirme, the Scripture would not hauehave concealed it, but expressed it: but in respect there is no mention made of this change in the Scriptures, therefore there is no such change in this action. Further if there were such a change, as they say, either it is before these words of consecration be spoken, or followes after the same words be spoken. If the change be before the words of the consecration be spoken, the consecration is superfluous, and their Proposition is false: if the change p. 142be after the words be spoken, This bread is my body, their Proposition is false also; because the word bread is spoken, before the last syllable of their fiue words is pronounced. These, and infinite more absurdities follow of this doctrine.

And yet they obstinately perseuer, and vrge vsus with the letter, affirming that the words of Christ are so plaine that they admit no figure. They would hauehave spoken more aduisedly if they had sought counsell of Augustine, to hauehave discerned betwene a figuratiue speech, and a proper speech: for he in his third booke and 16. chapter of Christian doctrine, speakes after this sort; If the speech, saith he, seeme to command a wickednesse or mischiefe, or to forbid any happinesse or any welfare, it is not proper, it is then figuratiue. And he addes for an example, a place out of Iohn 6.53. Except, saith our Sauiour, ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drink his bloud, ye hauehave no life in you. Whereunto Augustine addeth: This speech saith he, seemeth to commande a mischiefe therefore it is a figuratiue speech, whereby we are commanded to communicate with the sufferings of Christ Iesus, and with gladnes to keepe in perpetuall memory, that the flesh of the Lord was crucified and wounded for vsus. For otherwise it were more horrible (as the same Augustine maketh mention in the second booke against the Aduersaries of the law) to eate the flesh of Christ Iesus really, then to murther him; and more horrible to drinke his bloud, then to shed his bloud. Yet notwithstanding they are not ashamed still to hold & maintaine, that those words ought to be taken properly. So that it appeareth, that of very malice for contradiction sake, to the end onelyonly that they may withstand the truth, they will not acknowledge this to be a sacramentall speech. For they are compelled will they, nill they, in other speeches of the like sort to acknowledge a figure; as Genes. 17.10. Circumcision is called the couenant; and Exod. 12.11. the Lambe is called the Passeouer; and Math. 20.22. the Cup is called his Bloud; and Luke 22.20. the Cuppe is called the new Testament; and 1. Cor. 10.4. the Rocke is p. 143called Christ. All these speeches are sacramentall, and receiue a kinde of interpretation: yet they maliciously prease to deny vsus this in these words (Hoc est corpus meum,) which they are compelled to grant in the rest, as especially where Paul calleth the rocke Christ.

Now when they are driuen out of this Fortresse they flie as vnhappily to the second: namely, That God by his omnipotency may make the body of Christ to be in heauen, and in the bread both at one time. Ergo, say they, it is so. If I denied their consequent, they would be much troubled to proue it. But the question standeth not here, whether God may do it or not: but the question is, Whether God will it or not; or may will it or not. And we say reuerently, that his Maiestie may not will it: for though it be true that he may many things which he will not, yet it is as true, that there are many things which he may not will; of the which sort this is: and these are reduced to two sorts.

First, he may not will those things which are contrary to his nature: as to be changeable, as to decay, & such others: for if he might will these things, they should not be arguments of any puissance or of any other power, but rather certaine arguments of his impotency and infirmity. And therefore though he may not will these things, he ceasseth not to be omnipotent; but so much the rather his constant and inuincible power is knowne.

Secondly, God may not will some things by reason of a presupposed condition: as such things, whereof he hath concluded the contrary before; of the which sort is this which is now controuerted. For seeing that God hath concluded, that a humane body should consist of instrumentall parts, and therefore to be comprehended and circumscribed within one, and the owne proper place: and also seeing he hath appointed Christ Iesus to hauehave the like body, and that not for a time, but eternally: in respect of this determined will (I say) God may not will the contrary now, eyther to abolish this bodie which he hath appointed to be eternall, p. 144or yet to make it at one time, in respect of one thing, a body and not a body, quantified and not quantified, finite and infinite, locall and not locall: for to will these things which are plaine contrary in themselues he may not, no more then it is possible for him to will a lye. So it may be seene of all men, that we preserue the omnipotency of God; and with reuerence from our hearts, acknowledge him onelyonly to be onelyonly omnipotent: and we desire all men to esteeme them as Calumniatours, who abuse the eares of the simple ones to perswade them the contrary of vsus.

They are not content with this: but they say, That God may wil a contradiction, and make both the parts to be true at one time. And to proue this, they would bring in the miracles which God works: as if they would say, EueryEvery miracle includes a contradiction. As for example; God made a Virgine to beare a Sonne, they thinke this worke brings with it a contradiction. To beare a Sonne, say they, is the one part of the contradiction; and to be a Virgine, is the other part of the contradiction. This worke is a miracle, but it implieth no contradiction: for concerning the holy Virgins conception, therein is no contradiction. There was a miracle indeede, that a virgin should beare a Sonne, contrary to the course of nature: for to be a virgine, & yet to hauehave a child, are not contradictory if she hauehave conceiued & broght forth by miracle, as did the blessed Virgin: But to be a virgine and not a virgine at one time, this is the contradiction. So Christ his body to be visible and inuisible, locall & not local, at one time, is in eueryevery respect the like contradiction; and therefore impossible to be true.

Their other example, of Christ his entring in, the doores being closed and shut, what appearance of contradiction hath it? Can they proue that he entred through the doores? And if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities and that by miracle, either in Christ his body, or in the doores; but no contradiction in nature, vnles you know not what a contradiction is.

Their third and last example of the fire in Nabuchadnezzars p. 145Ouen, which consumed the ministers, but hurt not them that were in the midst of i…, appeares to be of no weight, by that which hath alreadie bene answered. They imagine, as appeareth, that in eueryevery miracle a contradiction is implyed: which is absurd. If they can proue that this fire was both hot and cold, then they say something to the purpose: but that it burnes vp some and hurts not others, is no contradiction; because by miracle the force therof was repressed. So this second ground is sure; God may not will that thing w…ich implyeth a contradiction. But so it is that the reall presence of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament implyeth a contradiction; for it maketh the bodie of Christ visible and inu…sible, compast and not compast at one time: therefore God may not will such a thing.

When they are driuen from this, they make their last refuge a peremptorie defence in their owne opinion:Their last r… fuge. for they say, Christ his bodie is freed from physicall rules: for Theologie is not subiect to physicall rules. It is a very ill gathered consequence, to say, that we subiect Theologie to Physicke, because that we (first, according to Theologie, which is the law of God; and next, according to Physicke, which is the law of Nature) defend the naturall properties of the true and naturall bodie of Christ Iesus. Then I grant this, that Theologie is not subiect vntounto Physicke; what of this? Ergo, Christ his bodie is freed from physicall rules. How followeth that I pray you? By what law may ye free or can ye free the bodie of Christ? By the law of Nature ye cannot; for he was made of the seede of Dauid, and tooke on him true flesh of the wombe of the Virgine: And far lesse by the …aw of God, which is Theologie: for ye know that Christ was appointed from all eternitie, to take on him our nature and to become true man.

Indeede it is true, that the law of God cannot be subiect to the law of nature; for the law of Nature floweth from the law of God as out of the owne spring: but it is as true, that if ye take▪ Christ his bodie from the law of Nature, ye shall free it also from the law of God. For I affirme that the p. 146Scripture so consents with the law of Nature, that if ye denie the one, ye shall denie the other; and if ye admit the one, ye shall admit also the other. Therefore if they looke well about them, they shall fi…de the beame to be in their owne eye: for they peruert both the law of God and the law of Nature, by a new inuented naturall knowledge of their owne.

For wha…soeuer he be that attributes to one and the selfe same bodie, naturall and vnnaturall properties, which directly fight against themselues; I say, that man peruerteth both true Theologie and Nature. But they to one and the selfe same body of Christ Iesus, attribute naturall and vnnaturall properties: therefore it is they that peruert both the vse of true Theologie, and the order set downe and established in Nature.

Would you know the reason of my Proposition? I say, it behoueth as well in Theologie as in Nature, of necessity one of the contrarie enunciations to be false. But once to make an end with them, I will answer their last refuge. Thus they reason; A glorified bodie is not subiect to naturall rules: but Christ his bodie is glorified; therefore it is not subiect to naturall rules. First of all, before we answer directly, we must consider wherein standeth the glorification of a bodie, and then the answer will be easie.

The Apostle Paul, 1. Cor. 15.42. speaketh after this manner; So also, saith he, is the resurrection of the dead. The bodie is sowne in corruption, & is raised in incorruption: It is sowne in dishonour, and is raised in glorie: It is sowne in weaknesse, and is raised in power. And a little after: This corruption must put on incorruption, and this mortalitie must put on immortalitie. By this cleare Antithesis, Paul plainly describeth the glorification of a bodie; for he opposeth these two, the vnglorified and the glorified bodie: And to the vnglorified bodie he ascribeth corruption, ignominie, infirmitie, carnalitie, and mortalitie: To the glorified bodie he attributes incorruption, glorie, pow…r, spiritualitie and immortalitie. Of this opposition we may gather easily, what the resurrection and glorification p. 147bringeth to the bodie. In a word, by them we see that the bodie is onelyonly spoyled of corruption, shame, infirmitie, naturalitie, and mortalitie: and it becometh onelyonly spoyled of all the infirmities of our nature, that it may be clothed with a more glorious apparell: as with incorruption, power, glorie, spiritualiti…, and immortalitie. We see then, that this glorification imports a change indeed; but I beleeue no man will be so mad, as to thinke this change to be made in the substance: for if that were so, the old substance behoued to decay, and a new should arise: but we heare no such thing in this discription. And as little is the change made in the quantitie: for we find no word either of augmentation or diminution of any substance, which behoued to be, if it were in the quantitie. The most that we can perceiue, this mutation consisteth in the qualities, by the which the bodie casteth off the old coate of infirmitie, and is clothed a new with the coate of glorie: for Christ after he did arise, he both went and came, was seene and touched. Of the things before deduced, it clea…ely followeth, That in respect the glorie of the bodie of Christ hath wrought nothing in his nature and substance, and consequently in his naturall dimensions, neither yet in any other essentiall propertie. that therefore the glorification of his bodie freeth it not from the rules of Nature. For so long as that nature of a true bodie remaineth, there are no supernaturall gifts whereby it may be glorified, were they neuer so high (so far as they may be gathered out of y^e Scriptures) that may hurt either the nature or the naturall propertie of it: For there is no gift nor qualitie that may hurt nature, but that gift that is against nature. But the supernaturall gift is neither vnnaturall, neither yet against nature: therefore it cannot hurt nor impaire nature. And my reason is this; Those gifts that decore and beautifie nature, they cannot hurt nor impaire nature: But all supernaturall gifts beautifie and decore nature; Therefore they cannot take away either nature, or yet the naturall propertie.

They leaue vsus not so: but out of this doctrine of Paule, p. 148concerning the glorification of the bodie, they draw an obiection to presse vsus withall. Paul granteth that a glorified bodie is a spirituall bodie▪ but a spirituall bodie is an inuisible body; Therefore a glorified bodie is inuisible: and by consequence, the bodie of Christ is inuisible.

Though …he argument be not formall: yet to be short I denie thei… assumption: for if there were no more but that word, bod…e, that word might be an argument that the spirituall bodie is not inuisible. But yet to open the matter more clearely, according to the meaning of Saint Paul in that place: Saint Paul in a word as it were, in the 44. verse of that Chapter, sheweth the change that shall be in the qualities of the bodie by the resurrection. For he saith, that our naturall bodies shall become spirituall bodies: and then in the next verse immediatly following, he expoundeth these two qualities: for in the 45. verse, That is called a naturall body, saith he, which is maintained and quickned by a liuing soule onelyonly, such as Adams was. And againe, that is said to be a spirituall bodie, which together besides the soule is quickned with a farre more excellent vertue, to wit, with the Spirit of God, which descendeth from Christ the second Adam vntounto vsus. Then according vntounto this ground I answer with Augustine ad Constantium: As the naturall bodie is not a soule, but a bodie: euen so the spirituall bodie is not said to be a soule, but a bodie. And by consequent, it is not inuisible. For the further explaining of this head, I will giuegive them onelyonly one knot to loose, & so end this point. Then I reason: If therefore Christs body is naturally and really in the Lords Supper, because that it is glorified: It followeth consequ…ntly, that when it was not glorified, it could not be really present. But it was not glorified when this supper was first instituted. Therefore it was not really present in the bread at Christs first Supper. If his bodie was not really present in the bread at the first Supper, it cannot be naturally present now. For whatsoeuer they vse now in the administration of their Supper or of their Masse, (call it as you will) according to their owne confession, they vse it according p. 149to the ordinance, forme, and manner that Christ Iesus himselfe vsed in his first Supper: For they say plainly in their disputation at Poyssie, and in all the rest of their works, That Christ Iesus first of all obserued that forme which they vse in their Masse, and left it to his Apostles and to their successours, that they should do the like. And so by their owne words they hauehave intangled themselues, and crucified their Masse: what can they answere to this? They will not stand dumbe I am sure: for maintenance of their religion they must say some thing. Thus they say, That though the body of Christ which was locally present with the rest of his disciples, was not glorified, yet the body which he exhibited in the bread was glorified. They might as wel hauehave held their peace, and say nothing. For marke the words of the text as they are written, Luke 22.19. where it is said, And he tooke the bread, and when he had giuen thankes, he brake it, and gaue to them saying, This is my body which is giuen for you: and Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.24. hath these words, Take, eate, this is my body, which is broken for you. This relatiue, which, is relatiue to the body which was exhibited in the bread: for according to their owne confession, those words are pronounced vponupon the bread and directed vntounto it. But that same body was giuen and broken vntounto vsus, that is to say, crucified and broken with anguish and dolors. Then I reason after this sort: To be crucified and broken with anguish and dolors, can no wayes agree and accord with a glorified bodie: But the body that Christ exhibited in the bread, is said of the Euangelists, to be crucified and broken for vsus: Ergo, that body was not glorified.

Now last of all they are not yet content, but say, Christ can make the bread his body; and therefore his body is really present. That Christ can make the bread his body, we grant: for Christ being God, can do whatsoeuer he wil: onelyonly let them shew, That Christ will make of reall bread, his reall flesh, and then this controuersie will end. Christ indeede makes the bread his body, not really but sacramentally: For Christ hath not a bodie made of bread; his bodie p. 150was made once of the pure substance of his blessed Mother: Another body then this, or oftner made then once, hath he …one: wherefore all doctrine that teacheth Christs body to be made of bread is impious and hereticall. The Papists doctrine of reall presence teacheth, that Christs body in the Sacrament is made of bread, by changing the bread into his body through consecration: wherefore we may bodly and truly conclude; That their doctrine of reall presence is both wicked and hereticall. Now to conclude this head: I beseech them, seeing that reason failes them, that they fight not against God for maintenance of a lie how old soeuer it be, (for the diuell is old enough, and yet he could neuer change his nature.) But let them rather glorifie God in confessing these speeches to be Sacramentall.

Then what is the reason and ground wherefore the Papists pull downe the substance of the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ,The reason that moues the Papists to thinke th…t Christs body cannot be present in the Sacrament, except it be really, carnally, and substā tially present. and make the very substance to be corporally, really, and substantially in the Sacrament? The reason is this, Because they cannot see by their naturall iudgement, nor can vnderstand by their naturall wit, the truth of this to wit, how Christs flesh and bloud ca… be present in the Sacrament, except he be present to their corporall mouth and stomacke. If they had the light to informe them, that Christ might be present in the Sacrament, and not to the hand, to the mouth, or stomack, they would neuer think of such a monstrous presence as they imagine to be there. But being destitute of the spirituall light, they follow their naturall reason, and make a naturall and carnall presence. So that ye hauehave this lesson to nore from hence:Obseruation. There is no man that hath not the spirit of God to vnderstand this word, This is my body, but out of question he will do as the Papists do that is, he will vmderstand it carnally: And so they misknowing the right meaning of it, it is no marueile though and we differ in this matter.

For will you aske of a Papist, first if the true body of Christ be there, or if the true flesh and bloud of Christ be p. 151there; he will say, it is there: will you aske him wherein?The diuerse opinions cō cerning the presence of the body of Christ in the Sa…rament. he will say in and vnderunder the accidents of the bread and wine, vnderunder the hew and roundnesse of the bread: will you aske him againe, by what instrument it is receiued? He will tell you by the mouth and stomacke of the body: So this is their grosse vnderstanding of the body and bloud of Christ. Will you aske of the Vbiqueter, if the true body of Christ be present? he will say, it is: will you aske, if it be in, with, or vnderunder the bread? he will answere, It is in the bread, contentiuè, that is, the bread containes it: will you aske him to what instrument it is offered? he will answere, that the bodie of Christ is offered to the mouth of our bodie, and that the bloud of Christ is offered to the mouth of our body, as the Papists do: Will you know of vsus how Christ Iesus his true body & bloud is present? We wil say, that they are spiritually present, really present, that is, present in the Lords Supper, and not in the bread: we will not say, that his true flesh is present to the hand, or to the mouth of our bodies; but we say it is spiritually present, that is, present vntounto thy spirit and faythfull soule: yea, euen as present inwardly vntounto thy soule, as the bread and wine are present vntounto thy body outwardly. Will you aske then, if the body and bloud of Christ Iesus be present in the Lords Supper? We answer in a word; They are present, but not in the bread and wine, nor in the accidents, nor substance of bread and wine. And we make Christ to be present in this Sacrament, because he is present to my soule, to my spirit, & fayth. Also we make him present in the Lords Supper, because I hauehave him in his promise, This is my body; which promise is present to my faith: and the nature of faith is to make things that are absent in themselues, yet present. And therefore se…ing he is both present by faith in his promise and present by the vertue of his holy Spirit, who can say but that he is present in this Sacrament?

But yet the word would be explained,How a thing is said to be present and absent. what we meane by the word, present, how a thing is said to be present, and absent. And knowing this, ye shall finde all the mater easie. p. 152I say, things are said to be present, as they are perceiued by any outward or inward sense, and as they are perceiued by any of the senses, so are they present, and the further they be perceiued the further present: and by what sense any thing is perceiued, to that sense it is present. As if it be outwardly perceiued by an outward sense, that thing is outwardly present. As for exāple, if it be perceiued by the outward sight of the eye, by the outward hearing of the eare, by the outward feeling of the hands or taste of the mouth, it is outwardly present. Or if any thing be perceiued by the inward eye, by the inward taste and feeling of the soule, this thing cannot be outwardly present, but it must be spiritually and inwardly present to the soule. So I say eueryevery thing is present, as it is perceiued. So that if you perceiue not a thing outwardlie, it is outwardly absent: and if ye perceiue not a thing inwardly, it is inwardly absent. It is not distance of place that maketh a thing absent. nor propinquity of place that makes a thing present: but it is onelie the perceiuing of any thing by any of thy senses that makes a thing present; and the not perceiuing that makes a thing absent: I say, though the thing it selfe were neuer so farre distant, if thou perceiue it by thine outward sense, it is present vntounto thee. As for example, my bodie and the Sunne are as farre distant in place, as the heauen is from the earth; & yet this distance stayeth not the Sunnes presence from me: why? because I perceiue the Sunne by mine eye and other senses; I feele it and perceiue it by the heate, by the light, and by his brightnesse. So if a thing were neuer so farre distant, if we hauehave senses to perceiue the same, it is present to vsus. Then the distance of place makes not a thing absent from thee, if thou hast senses to perceiue it: likewise the neerenes of place makes not a thing present, be it neuer so neere, if thou hast not senses to perceiue it. As for example, if the Sunne shine vponupon thine eyes, if thou be blinde it is not present to thee, because thou canst not perceiue it. A sweete tune will neuer be present to a deafe eare, though it be sung in the eare of that man, because he hath not a sense to perceiue p. 153it: and a well told tale will neuer be present to a foole, because he cannot vnderstand it, nor hath no iudgement to perceiue it: So it is not the nearenesse nor distance of place that maketh any thing present or absent, but onelyonly the perceiuing or not perceiuing of it.

Now the word being made cleare,How the bodie of Christ is present. aske you how the bodie of Christ is present? To giuegive our iudgement in a word, as ye hauehave heard from time to time, he is present, not to the outward senses, but to the inward senses, which is faith wrought in the soule. For this action of the Sacrament and of the Lords Supper, is partly corporall, and partly spiritual: I call this action partly corporall, not in respect onelyonly that the obiects, that is, that bread and wine are corporall, but also in respect my mouth whereunto these things are offered, the instrument whereby, and the manner how these things are receiued, are all corporall and naturall. I …all the same action againe, partly spirituall, not onelyonly in respect of Christ Iesus who is the heauenly and spirituall thing of the Sacrament, but also in respect of my soule wherunto Christ is offered and giuen, in respect the instrument whereby, and the manner how he is receiued, are all spirituall: for I get not Christ corporally but spiritually. So in these respects I call this action partly corporall and partly spirituall.

Now confound not these two sorts of actions, the corporall and naturall signes, with the spirituall thing signified thereby: againe, confound not the mouth of the body with the mouth of the soule. Thirdly, confound not the outward manner of receiuing by the hand of the bodie with the spirituall manner of receiuing by the hand of the soule. And so it shall be exceeding cleare to see, that each thing shall be present to the owne instrument; that is, the bodie of Christ which is the spirituall thing signified, shall be present to the spirituall mouth and hand: and the bread and wine which are the corporall signes, are present to the corporall mouth and hand. Then how is any obiect present? A corporall obiect is corporally present: and an inward obiect is inwardly present. Of what nature is the thing signified? It is of an p. 154heauenly natu…e. Then aske you how he is present; He i… spiritually and heauenly present to the soule, and the mouth of the soule, which is faith. For it were a preposterous thing to make the thing signified present to thy bellie, or to the mouth or eye of thy bodie; for if that were so, it should not be spiritually present: because eueryevery thing is present as it agreeth in it owne nature. Is it a bodily thing? it is bodily present: and if it b… a heauenly thing, it is spiritually present. So I thinke no man can doubt how the bodie of Christ is present: he is not …arnally present, but spiritually present to my soule, and to faith in my soule. Thus far concerning the manner of his presence.

The last point in controuersie betwixt vsus and the Papists.Now the last part of our difference is this: we hauehave to consider to whom the words ought to be directed and pronounced: For we and the Papists differ in this last point; we say that the words ought to be directed and pronounced vntounto the people, to the faithfull communicants. They on the contrary say, that the words ought not to be directed nor pronounced to the people, but to the elements, and not to be clearely pronounced, but whispered on the elements; So that if they be spoken to the people, or spoken openly, their charme auaileth not. Now I say, that as this holy action is peruerted by them in all the rest, so they peruert it in this point also, in speaking that to the dumbe elements which they should speake to the people of God: For I shall proue it clearely by three arguments taken out of the Scriptures, that the words ought not to be spoken to the bread, but to the people of God.

And first I say, the promises of merciemercy and grace ought to be directed and pronounced to them in whom the Lord performeth them and maketh them effectuall: But so it is that the promises of merciemercy and grace are performed, and made effectuall not in bread and wine, but in faithfull men and women: Therefore these promises should be directed to faithfull men and women. Now here is the promise of merciemercy and graces: This is my bodie which is broken for you: and this promise is made to no other thing but to the faithfull, p. 155and so to them onelyonly it ought to be directed. Secondly, we hauehave to consider, that this Sacrament seales vp a couenant of grace and merciemercy. Now with whom will God make his couenant of merciemercy and grace? will he make a couenant with a peece of bread or any dumbe element: There is no man will enter into couenant with his seruant, much lesse wil enter inter couenāt with a dumbe element. So in respect this Sacrament seales vp a couenant, this couenant of necessity must be made with a faithfull soule, and in no wise with the dumbe element: and therefore these words cannot be directed to the elements. Thirdly, looke to y^e end wherefore this Sacrament was appointed. Is it not to leade vsus to Christ? Is it not to nourish my faith in Christ? Is it not to nourish me in a constant perswasion of the Lords mercy in Christ? Was this Sacrament appointed to make the elements Gods? No, for if ye marke Gods purpose in this institution, ye shal find that Christ hath not ordained this institution to nobilitate the elements, to fauour & respect the elements which were Bread and Wine yesterday, to be Gods to day. We on the contrary say plainly, that the institution of Christ respecteth not the elements to alter their nature. Indeed it is appointed to alter vsus, to change vsus, and to make vsus more and more spirituall, and to sanctifie the elements to our vse. But the speciall end is this, to make vsus holy, and more and more …o grow vp in a sure faith in Christ, & not to alter the elements nor to make them gods. And therefore by all these three Arguments, it is euident that the words ought nor to be directed to the elements, but to the people and faithfull communicants.

Now to come to an end:Conclusion, with an exhortation. There is one thing without the which we cannot profit, let vsus discourse neuer so long vponupon the right vnderstanding of the Sacrament. Ye see now how all that is spoken concerning the Sacrament, is grounded and dependeth vponupon faith. Let a man hauehave faith be it neuer so little, he shall get some hold of Christ, and some insight in the vnderstanding of this Sacrament: but wanting faith, though a man endeuour himselfe to make the Sacraments p. 156neuer so sensible, it is not possible that he can get any hold of Christ, or any insight of him. For without faith we cannot be Christians: we can neither get a sight of God, nor feele God in Christ without faith.

Faith is the onelyonly thing that translateth our soules out of that death and damnation wherein we were conceiued and borne, and planteth life in vsus. So the whole studie and endeuour of a Christian should tend to this; To craue that the Lord in his merciemercy would illuminate his mind with the eye of faith, and that he would kindle in his heart a louelove of faith, and worke in his heart a thirst and desire of the obiect of faith, and more and more to thirst and hunger for the foode of faith that nourisheth vsus to life eternall.

Without this faith (how-soeuer the naturall man vnderstanding naturally, would flatter himselfe) surely there is no blessednesse; but all his life is more then terrible miserie. For whatsoeuer it be that flatters and pleaseth thee now, be it a thought or motion of the mind, or an action of the bodie that pleaseth thee now without faith, the same very motion, cogitation, or action, shall torment thee hereafter.

So without faith it is not possible to please God; and whatsoeuer pleaseth not God, is done to torment thee. Therefore craue merciemercy for whatsoeuer motion, cogitation, or action, wherein thou hast offended God; or for the same God shall offend and torment thee. And to eschue the offence of God there is no meanes but by true faith; therefore the studie of a Christian should be to grow in faith.

Now by hearing of the word thou gettest faith; and by receiuing this Sacrament thou obtainest the increase of faith; and hauing faith, the receiuing of the Sacrament shall be fruitfull: but without faith thou eatest thine owne condemnation. Then the whole studie of a Christian is to get faith; and this faith cannot be obtained with idlenesse, but by earnest prayer: therefore let eueryevery one of vsus fall downe, and craue earnestly this faith and the increase of it, whereby we may be worthie receiuers of this blessed Sacrament; p. 157and that for the righteous merits of Christ Iesus: To whom with the Father and the holy Spirit, be all honour, praise and glorie, both now and euer, Amen.