The New Covenant — William Attersoll

The New Covenant · William Attersoll

CHAP. V. Of the third outward part of the Lords Supper.

THe third outward part of the Lords Supper followeth,aBread and wine are the outward ſigns of the Lords Supper. which are the elements of bread & wine, fitteſt ſignes for this purpoſe, to ſignifie the ſpirituall nouriſhment of the ſoule, by eating the body and drinking the blood of Chriſt. That theſe are appointed as the ſubſtance & matte… of the Supper, it apeareth by the words of Chriſt, & his Apoſtles deliuering this Sacrā. For the Euangeliſts expres,bMat. 26, 26. Mar. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19. Act. 2, 41, 42. and 20.17. 1 Cor. 10.16. that Chriſt tooke bread, gaue it, and ſaid, Take ye, and eate yee. So likewiſe it is ſaid of the Church newly planted by the Apoſtles, that ſuch as gladly receiued the word, and were baptized, Continued in the Apoſtles doctrine, and fellowſhip, and breaking of bread. And chap. 20. it is recorded, That the firſt day of the weeke, the Diſciples came together to breake bread. And Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 10. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? And in the chapterc1 Cor. 11, 23 26, 27, 28. following, the ſame Apoſtle often mentioneth and remembreth the bread of this Sacrament. In like manner Chriſt tooke the cup,dMat. 26, 29. wherein was the fruite of the Vine. By theſe Chriſt is truely exhibited vntounto vsus: he is truely offered vntounto all: he is effectually giuen to the faithfull, as hath beene oftentimes remembred vntounto vsus.

But before we come to the vſes ariſing from theſe ſignes, Obiection. it ſhall not bee amiſſe to aske and to anſwere a queſtion, why Chriſt made choice of bread and wine rather then any other elements to be the ſignes of the Sacrament of his body and blood? I anſwere, Anſwere. it was by reaſon of the analogy and proportion betweene them; for there is a ſimilitude and agreement betweene the ſigne and the thing ſignified, as will eaſily and diſtinctly appeare by theſe particular conſiderations compared together, both touching the bread and touching the wine. For firſt of all (to ſpeake in order of thē) concerning the bread,Reaſons why Chriſt made choiſe of bread. Gen. 18, 6. Leuit. 2, 4. as of the graine of wheat is made corporall bread: ſo of the body of Chriſt is made ſpirituall bread. Secondly, as bread is baked in the Ouen by the heat of the fire: ſo is the body of Chriſt heated and boyled by the fire of the Croſſe, and thereby prepared for vsus to be the food of life.Pſal. 81, 16. Thirdly, as this naturall life is ſuſtained by bread: ſo through Ieſus Chriſt the bread of life, our ſoules are nouriſhed to a ſpirituall and eternall life. Fourthly,Pſal. 104, 15. as the heart of man is ſtrengthened and fortified by bread, ſo the merit of Chriſts body doth ſuſtaine & ſupport the ſoule to eternall life.Gen. 18.5. Fiftly, as bread ſlaketh the hunger of the body: ſo the force and efficacy of Chriſts body doth aſſwage and alay the hunger of the ſoule. Sixtly, as bread profiteth ſuch as are hungry,Eſay 58, 7. Prou. 27, 7. but doth no good to them that are already filled and glutted: ſo the merit of Chriſts body bringeth a benefit to them onelyonly that hunger after righteouſneſſe: but as for ſuch as are proud and puffed vp with a conceit of their owne righteouſnes, it yeeldeth no profit at all vntounto them.1 Cor. 10, 17. Seauenthly, as the bread diſtributed and diuided among many is a ſigne of vnity and concord: ſo the body of Chriſt offered vp for many vponupon the Croſſe; is a pledge vntounto vsus of his louelove toward vsus, and of the louelove that ought to bee among our ſelues.1 Cor. 10, 16, 17. Laſtly, as one loafe is made of many graines: ſo we that are many are become one myſticall body of Chriſt which are partakers of one bread. Thus we hauehave ſeene a ſimilitude and likeneſſe betweene the properties and effects of bread and of the body of Chriſt:Reaſons why Chriſt made choice of wine. now let vsus ſee wherefore Chriſt vſed wine, and commanded it to be vſed after his owne example; why he preferred it before all other things, and what is the reſemblance betweene it and the blood of Chriſt. Firſt of all, as wine is the ſweeteſt liquor proceeding from the Vine:Iudg. 9, 13. ſo the blood of Chriſt is the moſt pleaſant drinke of the ſoule that was ſhed for vsus, and flowed out of his ſide who is the true Vine, Ioh. 15, 1.7. Secondly,Prou 9, 5. as wine doth quench the thirſt of the body: ſo the merit of Chriſts blood doth take away the thirſt of the ſoule, that it ſhall neuer thirſt againe, Ioh. 4. Thirdly, as wine doth cheere vp the heart of man:Pſal. 104, 16. ſo the promiſes of Chriſt do cheere and refreſh the ſoule. Fourthly,Prou. 31, 6. as wine doth warme the body and make it more apt and fit to do buſineſſe: ſo the blood of Chriſt receiued by faith doth ſtirre vp and inflame the ſoule to all good motions, and maketh vsus more prompt and ready to eueryevery good worke. Fiftly, as wine taketh away fearefulnes,Prou. 23, 32. and cauſeth men to be more bold and ſecure: ſo doth the blood of Chriſt applyed to the conſcience by faith, aſſure vsus of Gods fauour, eaſe vsus of the curſe of the law, and make vsus conſtant in the confeſsion of Chriſt. Laſtly,Prou. 21, 29▪ 30. as wine putteth away the paleneſſe of the face and maketh the countenance ſhine: ſo the blood of Chriſt turneth the colour of the ſoule into a comely hue, which before was pale and wan through feare of death; that is, it quieteth the conſcience,Rom. 5, 1. appeaſeth the wrath of God, and maketh vsus gracious before him, ſo that we appeare righteous and acceptable in his ſight.

This being the plaine and euident truth, let vsus ſee the vſes, firſt ſuch as concerne both the ſignes ioyntly and in generall, then ſuch as belong to each of them in ſeuerall and in particular. To begin, we learne from hence to acknowledge a difference betweene baptiſme and the Lords ſupper; in baptiſme we hauehave one ſigne as the materiall part, in the Supper we hauehave two ſignes,eWhy we hauehave two ſignes in the Lor…s Supper a…d only one in baptiſme. partly to note out our whole, full, and perfect nouriſhment in Chriſt, hauing whatſoeuer is requiſite for our ſaluation; and partly to ſhew a fuller remembrance of his death, for the wine which is a figure of his blood, doth as it were preſent it and repreſent it before our eyes. So then, albeit the ſame participation of Chriſt and the ſame waſhing away of ſins by his blood, are ſealed vp in baptiſme and in the Supper: yet the manner of ſealing them in each is diuers. Againe, baptiſme is a ſigne of our entrance into Gods Couenant: the Supper is a ſign of our abiding and continuing in that couenant. Touching bapt…ſme, it is ſufficient for infants if they bee borne in the Church: in the Supper, the condition of examining our ſelues, and remembring the Lords death is required. They differ alſo in often celebration of them: baptiſme is to bee receiued but once onelyonly in all our life, becauſe the promiſe once made, is alwayes firme and forcible to ſuch as beleeue and repent: but the Supper is oftentimes to be receiued, becauſe an often renewing of that Couenant, and calling it to our remembrance is neceſſary to increaſe and ſtrengthen faith. They differ alſo in the order which is to be obſerued in the vſe of them: for baptiſme is to be giuen before the Supper, and the Supper may not be giuen to any, except to ſuch as are knowne to hauehave beene firſt baptized, or are at leaſt reputed ſo to be.

As firſt a Child is borne, before he be fed: ſo muſt Baptiſme go before, whereby our new birth is ſealed: then the Supper muſt follow after, whereby our daily nouriſhment is declared and confirmed. Laſtly, they differ in the ſignes, there is onelyonly one ſigne in baptiſme, which is the water: but there are two ſignes in the Lords Supper, to wit, the bread and wine.

The ſecond generall vſe is, that if Chriſt tooke, gaue, and deliuered the ſubſtance of the bread and wine: then they muſt needs retaine their former nature & their proper ſubſtance, as well as their qualities, as ſight, taſte, ſmell, bigneſſe, whitenes, ſweetnes, rednes, roundnes, and ſuch like properties. But the Papiſts turne all thingsgAgainſt the bare ſhewes of bread and wine: and accidents without ſubiect. vpſide downe, matter into forme, ſubſtance into accidents, creatures into ſhewes, and ſubiects into things adioyned: they bring in new ſhifts and fables againſt all diuinity, philoſophy, reaſon, ſence, and experience, ſetting vp their owne inuentions, and building Caſtles in the ayre. Let them prooue the annihilation and remouing of the ſubſtance of bread & wine away, and thehAriſt. phiſ. lib. 1. cap. 3. conſiſting of accidents without ſubiect, which they are neuer able to do. For as the water in baptiſme remaineth in his nature and ſubſtance: ſo do the bread and wine in the Lords Supper. And albeit in both the Sacraments the ſignes be changed to a ſpeciall vſe: yet are they not corrupted into ſhewes, and turned into ſhadowes. The heauensiPſal. 102, 26. ſhall be changed at the end of the world: yet hence it followeth not, that they ſhall be cleane aboliſhed and conſumed to nothing. All young ſchollers are taught in the ſchooles,kAccidentis eſſe eſt in eſſe. that an accident hath no being without a ſubiect: yet heere theſe Sophiſters, againſt all the rules of Logick,lPorphyr. ca. 5. de accidente. foreign. and grounds of reaſon, would hauehave accidents and ſhewes of bread and wine to be in no ſubiect. Thus whereas in all places of learning we are taught, that accidents may periſh, not the ſubſtance of things: they will hauehave the matter and ſubſtance to periſh, not the accidents. We ſee whitenes, roundnes, drynes, moyſture: we taſte the ſweetnes: we touch all theſe qualities: yet (behold a popiſh wonder, whereat maruell and be aſtonied) theſe, theſe I ſay are not in the bread and wine, becauſe they are gone, neither in the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is not white or blacke, round or red. So we ſhall hauehave a white thing, yet nothing white: a round thing, yet nothing round: a ſmell, yet nothing that ſmelleth: a taſte of bread, yet nothing that taſteth: a breaking, and yet nothing that is broken: ſo that heere we hauehave ſomewhat made of nothing & nothing made of ſomewhat. For if any ſhould aske them what round or white thing is this, ſhewing the bread? Or what ſweete thing is that, pointing out the wine in the cup? They cannot ſay it is bread and wine, (for they hold that none are left) they are not able to ſhape any anſwere: for they will not ſay the body of Chriſt is white, round, ſweete, red, or ſuch like. Wherfore, theſe accidents of bread and wine rouing without ſubiects, are ſhewes of reaſon without ſubſtance, colours without truth, and fancies without ſetled iudgement: and as wel might they imagine, walking without feete, an houſe without a foundation, a veſſell without bottome, or a body without ſpace or place.

Againe, what is it that doth nouriſh? What is it that doth comfort and refreſh? For we feele our bodyes ſtrengthened by the creatures taken and receiued. And we reade in their owne hiſtories that King Lewes the gentle, for themAimoin. ex Ade…. li. 5. c. 19 ſpace of 40. dayes did eate nothing elſe. What is it then whereby we feele our ſelues to be fed? Can their accidents do it, hanging in the ayre by miraculous Geometry? Can whitenes, or rednes, or roundnes nouriſh vsus where no ſubſtance is to be found or felt? Can drines, or moyſture, can ſmelling or ſeeing nouriſh without ſome materiall body? They cannot. It muſt be ſubſtance that is turned into our ſubſtance: for neuer was it heard, that accidents were turned into ſubſtance. But whereas we hauehave bin taught, that accidēts are in their ſubiect, now we muſt hold for our new learning that ſubſtances are in their accidents. Wherefore, let vsus leaue theſe doubtfull and deceitfull builders that go about to build without ground or foundation, which cannot ſtand: and therefore their opinion is as improbable & impoſsible as the alchymiſticall tranſmutation.

The third general vſe ariſing from both the ſignes, is this: if Chriſt deliuered his laſt Supper in bread and wine, then theſe ſignes may not be altered, but muſt benThe bread and wine being the matter of the Sacrament may not be changed in the Lords ſupper. retained for the perpetuall vſe and comfort of the Church. And howſoeuer it be left to the choyce and liberty of the church, what bread or what wine they wil vſe: yet that it ought neceſſarily (as I take it) to be bread and the fruite of the Vine, may appeare by diuers good conſiderations. I wil propound the reaſons that draw me to this opinion, let the church iudge of them, ſeeing theo1 cor. 14, 32. ſpirits of the Prophets are ſubiect to the Prophets. Firſt, the inſtitution of the Supper, and the example of Chriſt himſelfe, whom the Church is to imitate and follow, who ſaid, Do p1 cor. 11, 25.this in remembrance of me. He ſaid not, do the like, or do what pleaſeth you, and ſwarue from my example where you will, bu… do this which ye hauehave ſeene me do. Whoſoeuer therfore change eyther the bread or wine, do not that which Chriſt commandeth, but another thing then he appointeth. Againe, no other ſignes are ſo ſignificant and effectuall as theſe are for this purpoſe, to ſtrengthen and to comfort them that are in trouble, and almoſt in the preſentPſal. 104.1… 15. Prou. 31, 6. Iudg. …, 12. Eccl. 10, 19. eſtate of death, as Pſal. 104. He bringeth forth bread out of the earth, & wine that maketh glad the hart of man, & oyle to make the face to ſhine, and bread that ſtrengthneth mans heart. Likewiſe the wiſe man ſaith, Pro. 31. GiueGive ye ſtrong drinke vntounto him that is ready to per ſh, and wine to them that hauehave griefe of heart. So that we are heereby effectually & ſignificantly put in minde, to hauehave a moſt ſweet feeling of Chriſt, to ſeeke ſtrength in him, and that it is he which aboundantly cheereth our hearts. Thirdly, the matter and forme of eueryevery thing,rAriſt. Met…ſh lib. 7. cap. 7. Plato in euthiph are holden to be of the nature of it, and to conſtitute the eſſence: ſo it is in the Sacraments, where the ſignes are the matter, and the words of inſtitution are the forme. True it is, circumſtances may vary and be changed, as time, place, ſitting ſtanding, kneeling, and ſuch like: but the eſſentiall parts may not be changed. If then, both of thē be of the eſſence of the Sacrament, ſuch as take eyther of them away, deſtroy the Sacrament, and bring in a nullity thereof. Wherefore, if the ſignes which are the matter, might be changed: then the words alſo of inſtitution which are the forme might be altered, and a new word brought into the church: but a new word cānot be broght in, therfore no new outward ſigne or matter. Fourthly, if the bread and wine in the Supper might be changed & yet the Sacrament in ſubſtance remaine: then in like manner, water in baptiſme might be changed, & yet be true baptiſme; for of things that are like, there is a like reſpect, and a like concluſion to be inferred. But this cannot be, as we hauehave ſhewed before in 2. book. cha. 5. where we hauehave proued, that the Miniſter cannot baptize with any other liquor or element, then with water, as the matter of that Sacrament. Neither let any obiect the caſe of neceſsity: for no neceſsity can make that lawfull, which ſimply and in it ſelfe is vnlawfull. Fiftly, if we admit and grant a change in the ſignes at the pleaſure of men: why may we not alſo change other parts of the Sacrament? Why may we not in ſtead of the Miniſter appointed of God and called by the Church, admit priuate perſons and receiue other alterations inforced vponupon the Church by the Papiſts? Do we not heereby open a gap for them, to bring in all their traſh and trumpery beſides the written and reuealed word of God? Sixtly, we hauehave ſhewed in the former booke, that Nadab and Abihu the two ſonnes of Aaron were ſmitten by the immediate hand of GodſLeui. 10, 1, 2 for offering the oblation with ſtrange fire. But all ſignes brought into the Sacraments beſide the Scripture, are ſtrange ſignes & conſequently procure ſtrange iudgemēts. And we ſee how the Prophet Ioell threatning from God a dearth of Corne, & wine, and of oyle,tIoel. 1, 9, 19. declareth alſo that the offerings ſhall ceaſe, where he ſaith, The field is waſted, the corne is deſtroyed, the oyle is decayed, the new w ne is dryed vp, the meate offering and the drinke offering is cut off from the houſe of the Lord, the Prieſts the Lords Miniſters ſhall mourne: ſhewing heereby that they were reſtrained from changing the outward ſignes. If any pretend greater freedome and liberty in the time of the Goſpell: let them ſhew their charter, and we will beleeue them. Laſtly, it is confeſſed on al ſides, that without conſecration and ſanctification, there can be no Sacrament: for without this hallowing, the water in baptiſme is bare water, the bread in the Supper is bare bread, the wine is common wine. Now eueryevery creature isu1 Tim 4, 5. ſanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as the Apoſtle teacheth, 1 Tim. 4. and therefore we cannot aſſure our hearts that God will bleſſe any other creatures, as fiſh or fleſh in ſtead of bread, water or beere in ſtead of wine, ſeeing the word hath not ſanctified theſe elements for this purpoſe. They are ſanctified by the word for the ordinary nouriſhment of our bodies, but they are not by any ſpeciall word ſanctified for the vſe of the Sacraments. If then it be ſimply vnlawful to change any thing in the matter of the Sacraments, no pretence or neceſsity can euer make it vnlawfull. And as when a lawfull Miniſter is wanting, a priuate perſon may not be taken: ſo when the matter appointed for the adminiſtration of this Sacrament is miſsing, another may not be aſſumed. For as well may we change the Miniſter of the Sacrament into a priuate man, as the bread and wine (being the ſignes) into another matter. If the Sacraments cannot be had according to the preciſe and pure inſtitution of Chriſt, they may lawfully be deferred or omitted: for the danger ſtandeth not in the want (as wee hauehave declared before) ſo long as wee are free from the contempt of them.

I am not ignorant that many learned men are of another iudgement, & ſuch as are of reuerent account in the church,Bucan. inſtit. loc. 48. de coen. Beza. epiſt. 2. who thinke that where there is no ſtore of bread and plenty of wine ſufficient for this purpoſe, ſome other thing may be taken in ſtead of them. Thus it may come to paſſe, that we ſhall hauehave nothing which Chriſt commanded and ſanctified by his example, and yet boaſt that wee hauehave his Supper, and do that which he appointed. For whereas we make foure outward parts of this Sacrament, the Miniſter, the word, the ſignes, and the receiuer: there are that hold there is no neceſsity of the Miniſter; others, that there is no neceſsity of the words of inſtitution: others, that there is no neceſsity of the ſignes: others, that there is no neceſsity of the receiuer: ſo that eueryevery thing is quite ouerturned of one or another, and yet all would be thought to do as Chriſt did, and as he commanded them to do. But conſider heerein the difference of opinion among men, receiuing one part but not another; ſo that if once we admit any alteration in any of the parts, we open a gap to al innouation, and bring in great vncertainty in the Sacraments. For touching baptiſme, ſome require it to be done by a Miniſter, that thinke we are not preciſely tyed to the words of inſtitution, or to the element of water: others hold we are limited to vſe the water, but in caſe of neceſsity wee may vſe priuate men or women to baptize. So in the Lords Supper many do neceſſarily require the Miniſter and no other to adminiſter it, but do not thinke it neceſſary he ſhold vſe bread and wine, and no other element. Thus we ſee, there is no certainty when once we depa…t from the inſtitution: ſo that the ſafeſt way is to cleane ſtrictly to the example of Chriſt, and then we ſhall be ſure we ſhall not doe amiſſe. Then wee ſhall bee ſure wee hauehave the faireſt warrant for that which we do, and lye leaſt of all open to be reproued of others.

The fourth generall vſe ariſing ioyntly from both the ſignes is, if Chriſt deliuered, and the Diſciples receiued bread and wine as the outward ſignes of this Sacrament: then we learn that the doctrine of tranſubſtantiatiō is a dotageaAgainſt tranſubſtantiation. of mans inuention. Though this deuice be now receiued in the Romane Church, as a matter of ſaluation, as an Article of ſaith, & a maine point of religion,bCo…cil Trid. ſeſſ 13. cap. 4. that by vertue of theſe words. This is my body, this is the cup of the new teſtament, the ſubſtance of bread and wine is gone, and nothing remaineth but onelyonly the ſhewes, likenes, and appearance of them: yet if we examine the matter by the words of inſtitution, by the nature of a Sacrament, by the proportion of ſaith, by the true properties of a true humane body, by force of reaſon, by iudgement of the ſenſes, by confeſſion of the aduerſaries themſelues, and by the manifold cō tradictions among themſelues: we ſhall finde it to be a late deuice and inuention of the Papiſts, firſt decreed and determined in the councell of Laterane, vnderunder Pope Innocent…us the third, in the raigne of King Iohn of England,cAnno 1255. not yet 400. yeares ago. There it was hatched at that time, & madedBarth. Caranza ſumma Concil. a maine matter of faith, approued in the Church of Rome, but yet not then receiued ouer all the world. This error is a ſpice of the error of Marcus, who went about to make his fellowes and followers beleeue,eIren lib. 1. c … Epiphan haereſ. 34. that hee did tranſubſtantiate wine into blood, in the Sacrament. Thus do the church of Rome at this day, yet was he noted for an heretick by the Fathers. I wil not for ſhortnes ſake bring al the reaſons that might be brought to ouerthrow and ouerturnefThe bread and wine remaine in their proper nature the turning of the bread into the body of Chriſt, and the wine into his blood; but alleadge ſome few among many, whereunto we require them to anſwere if they can. Neither let them pretend that they hauehave bin anſwered already, inaſmuch as no ſound and certaine anſwere can be brought vntounto them, to ſatisfie vsus or themſelues. Our reaſons for the preſent ſhall be theſe.

Firſt, that which Chriſt tooke in his hands, he brake: that which he brake, he gaue: that which he gaue his Diſciples, he commanded them to eate: that which he commanded them to eate, he calleth his body. This appeareth by the teſtimony ofgMat. 26, 26. Mar. 14, 22. Luk. 22, 19. the Euangeliſts, and coherence of the words. But he tooke bread and brake it: therefore he gaue bread, he commanded to eate bread, he ſaid of the bread, This is my body. Now if he tooke bread, but brake it not: or if he brake bread, but gaue it not: or if he gaue bread to his Diſciples to eate, but told them, not this which he gaue them, but ſome other thing beſide that, was his body: the latter part of the ſentence ſtarteth from the beginning, and the middle ſwarueth from them both.

Secondly, the Apoſtle after the words of conſecration, doth oftentimes call it bread, as 1 Cor. 11. As often as yee ſhall eate this h1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28. 1 Cor. 10, 16.bread, and drinke this cuppe, yee ſhew the Lords death till hee come. And againe, Whoſoeuer ſhall eate this bread, and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily, ſhall bee guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And againe, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. Theſe men ſay it is not bread: the Apoſtle ſaith it is bread: whether of theſe we ſhall beleeue, iudge you. So in the former chapter he ſaith, The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? Likewiſe, touching the other ſigne,iMat. 26, 29. our Sauiour expreſly calleth it wine after the thankſgiuing, Mat. 26. I will not drinke henceforth of this fruite of the Vine vntill that day, when I ſhall drinke it new with you in my Fathers kingdome. This fruite of the Vine is wine, therefore the ſubſtance of it remaineth. Now if the bread had bin turned into the body, or the wine into the blood of Chriſt, and if the Apoſtle would hauehave ſpoken properly, he ſhould hauehave ſaid, As often as ye ſhall eate, not this bread, but this body of Chriſt vnderunder the forme of bread, the blood of CHRIST vnderunder the forme of wine. And againe. He that eateth the body and drinketh the blood of Chriſt vnworthily. And againe, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate and take in his mouth the very body of Chriſt his Creator. But thus the Apoſtle hath not ſpoken, neither could he ſo ſpeake truely, properly, and fitly: therefore we do truely, properly, and fitly conclude, that there is no tranſubſtantiation.

Thirdly, Chriſt ſpeaking of the cup ſaith, Take,kLuk. 22, 1…, 19. diuide it among you; and of the bread he ſaith, he tooke it, and brake it. But if the ſubſtance of bread be aboliſhed, or chā ged into the body of Chriſt, and likewiſe the nature of the wine turned into the blood of Chriſt, there could bee no true diſtributing or breaking: for the blood of Chriſt is not deuided into parts, neither is his body broken.

Fourthly, if the ſtrength or force of tranſubſtantiation depend vponupon theſe words of inſtitution, This is my body, This is my blood: then there can be no reall change before theſe words be fully finiſhed, and pronounced to the end. Therefore, when they begin to ſay, This is: what is it? What meane they, I ſay, it is? Is it any other then bread & wine by their owne confeſsion, til the words be ended? So then, theſe ſentences ſhall not be true, when they ſay, This is my body, this is my blood, except they meane this bread is the body of Chriſt, this wine is his blood: wherfore bread and wine remaine, their nature is not changed and altered.

Fiftly, theſe words, This is my body, muſt be vnderſtood as the words following, This cup is the new Teſtament: but the cup is not turned into the new Teſtament, nor into the blood of CHRIST: therefore the other words muſt be figuratiuely vnderſtood, not literally: for there is one reſpect of them both: neither can any reaſon be rendred, why a figure ſhould be admitted in the one part, rather then in the other.

The 6. reaſon: Chriſt is ſaid to giuegive to his Diſciples that which he ſaid was his body, If then this be properly taken, we ſhall thereby make a proper Chriſt, and make him a monſter of two bodies, as they alſo make the church a monſter of two heads. For ſo there muſt be one bodye which gaue, and another body which was giuen. But it is moſt abſurd, that he ſhould giuegive and be giuen, hold himſelfe and be holden, offer and be offered: which differeth little from thelTheodoret de ſabul. haeretic. lib 2. Auguſt. de haereſib. cap. 32. hereſie of the Helceſaits, who held ther were ſundry Chriſts, two at the leaſt, one dwelling in heauen aboue, the other in the world heere beneath: ſo theſe make Chriſt to hauehave a double body, viſible and inuiſible; a viſible body ſitting at the table, and an inuiſible body made of the ſubſtance of bread, which (as the papiſts hold) was giuen to the Diſciples, as likewiſe they teach of the headſhip of the Church, that one head is inuiſible to vsus in the heauens, another viſible to vsus vponupon the earth.

The 7. reaſon: It deſtroyeth the nature of a Sacrament, which ſtandethmIren. lib. 4. cont. haer cap. 34. of an earthly and heauenly part: one outward, the other inward: one ſeene, the other vnderſtood: one a ſigne, the other a thing ſignified: of which we hauehave ſpoken before, booke 1. chap. 3. But if there be an actuall tranſubſtantiation, then the outward part is aboliſhed, and diſanulled.

The 8. reaſon: In baptiſme the ſubſtance of water remaineth, though it hauehave words of conſecration, and be made a Sacrament of our regeneration: and therefore in the Lords Supper the bread and wine are not changed and done away vtterly. The Scripture ſpeaketh as highlynMat 26, 26, 1 Pet. 3, 20, 21 of the one as of the other.

The ninth reaſon: If bread be really turned into the body of Chriſt, and the wine into his blood: then the bodye and blood of Chriſt are really ſeparated, for the words are ſeuerally pronounced, firſt of the bread, then of the wine: yea the ſoule of Chriſt ſhould be ſeparated from his body, for the bread is turned onelyonly into his body, and not into his ſoule. But his ſoule, his body, and his blood are not really ſeparated. So then, if the bread be his very fleſh, and the wine his blood, and the one really ſeparated from the other; then Chriſt muſt neceſſarily bee ſlaine afreſh eueryevery time the Supper is celebrated, and we are found to be crucifiers of the Lord of life: whereas it is contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, that he ſhould dye any more, being aſcended far aboue all principalities, and ſet downe at the right hand of his Father.

The 10. reaſon: If the bread be turned into his body indeed by force of a few words vttered by a Prieſt: then the Prieſt ſhould be the maker of his maker, & ſo eueryevery maſſemonger ſhould be preferred before Chriſt, as much as the creator hath more honour then the creature, the builder then the houſe, the worke-man then the worke. But they are not aſhamed to publiſh it in their owne wordes and writings,oStella clericorum. that the Prieſt is the creator of his Creator, He that created you, hath giuen you power to create him: he that hath created you without your ſelues, pCreatura …ob …lli…d ant…bas vrb…s.is created by you, by the meanes of you. Theſe are the ſpeeches of their wiſe men, if they be not aſhamed of their owne words: of which all wiſe men are worthily aſhamed.

The 11. reaſon: the bread in the Sacrament after the words of conſecration, is ſubiect to as many changes and chances as it was before: the bread may mould, putrifie, & breed wormes,q… Leuit. … cap. 3. H…he l. co …t …aet. and was accuſtomably in many places burned: the wine may (being immoderately taken) make drunken, it may waxe ſharpe and turne into vinegar: yea both of them may be boyled and made hot: both of them may be vomited vp, as certaine leapers did; both of them may be mingled with very rancke poyſon, as a certainer… 5. Monke gaue the poyſoned hoſt to Henry the ſeauenth, a noble Emperor of famous memory, which when he had taken, he dyed. The like may be ſaid of Victor the third, a Pope of Rome, who was poyſoned after the ſame mannerſ…. in the chalice, as the Emperor was in the bread. But the precious body and blood of Chriſt cannot be mingled with poyſon, but is an excellent counter-poyſon againſt the biting of the old Serpent and all infection of ſin whatſoeuer; the body cannot mould or putrifie, the blood of Chriſt cannot become ſharpe or ſowre, as the outward ſignes may, therefore the ſubſtance of bread and wine remaineth.

The 12. reaſon: there is ſomething in the Sacrament materiall and ſubſtantiall, which goeth the way of all meates, according to that ſaying of ourtMat. 15, 17. Sauiour, Mat. 15, 17. Perceiue ye not yet that whatſoeuer entreth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is caſt out into the draught? But none of the accidents, as ſhape, colour, quality, taſte, and ſuch like are auoyded, becauſe they are altered in the ſtomacke, before they come to the place of auoydance:uO…igen. in Mat. cap. 15. and it were blaſphemy to thinke that the bodye of Chriſt either entreth into the mouth, or goeth downe into the belly, or is caſt out into the draught, howſoeuer many of them hauehave alſo maintained this monſtrous impiety: Therefore the ſubſtance of the bread and the wine remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament.

The 13. reaſon: If there were a miraculous conuerſion of the bread & wine, it would appeare to the outward ſenſes, as Ioh. 6. The multitudeaIoh 6, 26. ſaw his miracles. There was neuer miracle wrought by any bodily creature, but ſenſe iudged it to be ſo: but ſeeing our eyes ſee, and our taſte diſcerneth that it is bread, we cannot imagine there is any miracle. The miracles that Moſes did in Egypt, when hee turned water into blood, and his rod into a Serpent: The miraclesbAuguſt. de Trinit. lib. 3. cap. …0. that Chriſt did, when he turned water into wine, the eye ſaw, the taſte diſcerned, heere was no deceit, no fraud, no colluſion. And thus eueryevery hedge-prieſt ſhould be a worker of miracles, that onelyonly can reade his portuiſe, and ſay ouer his Pater-noſter with an Aue-mary. This is an honour that may be challenged, but cannot be granted vntounto them.

The 14. reaſon: If there were any tranſubſtantiation, there ſhould be an actuall conuerſion of the bread into the body of Chriſt; but this cannot ſtand. For when one thing is changed into another, the matter remaineth, the forme is altered: but heere they make the forme to abide, and the matter to be changed. A ſtrange Metamorpho…is, and fitting the fable of this counterfeit turning. Now the matter of bread is not in the body of Chriſt, becauſe it is perfect in it ſelfe, and ſo glorified, that it can receiue no acceſſe. Beſides, nothing can be conuerted or changed into a thing before being and preexiſting, which was really before the change or conuerſion; as Chriſt turned the water into that wine which was not before,cExod 4, 3. Iohn 2, 8. Gen 1…, 26. and Moſes turned his rod into that ſerpent which was not before: and Lots wiſe was turned into that pillar which was not before. But the body of Chriſt is before their tranſubſtantiation, whereupon it followeth, that the bread cannot be changed into his body.

The 15. reaſon: If Chriſt did tranſubſtantiate the bread into his body when he ſaid, This is my body: then in like manner the Apoſtle did tranſubſtantiate the Church of the Corinthians into the body of Chriſt, when he ſaith, Now ye are d1 cor. 12, 27.the body of Chriſt, and members for your part. And Theophylact vponupon the ſixt chapter of Iohn ſaith, We our ſelues are tranſ-elemented (or tranſubſtantiated) into the body of Chriſt. What reaſon can they then alledge why tranſubſtantiation ſhould be in the one ſentence more then in the other? For the whole colledge and company of Diuines of Rome and Themes, and all the multitude of Papiſts throughout the world, ſhal neuer be better able to proue their tranſubſtantiation out of theſe words. This is my body: then out of the other Ye are the body of Chriſt.

The 16. reaſon: If the bread were turned into the body of Chriſt and receiued in the mouth, it ſhould go farre better with our bodyes then with our ſoules, becauſe our bodies ſhould really receiue the body of Chriſt, but our ſoules ſhould not▪ being ſpirits: & bodies cannot be mingled and intermedled with ſpirits. Wherefore, we cannot beleeue and receiue this reall conuerſion of one ſubſtance into another.

The 17. reaſon: If the bread be tranſubſtantiated into the body of Chriſt, and ſo receiued by vsus: then eyther it is turned into our bodies, or vaniſheth away into nothing, or returneth and departeth backe into heauen. For what fourth thing they ſhould imagine, cannot bee imagined. But it is not turned into our bodily ſubſtance, for then we ſhould grow bodily into one perſon with him, hee ſhould walke with vsus and reſt with vsus: he ſhould eate with vsus, and ſleepe with vsus: he ſhould be whole with vsus and ſicke with vsus, finally, he ſhould liue with vsus and dye with vsus: al which are abſurd. Neither doth his body vaniſh to nothing, for this were horrible blaſphemy once to affirme or conceiue of the body of Chriſt Ieſus, who by this fancy ſhal be made Ieſus, and no Ieſus; Chriſt and no Chriſt; a Sauiour and no Sauiour. And if once we admit this, we ſhall alſo hauehave religion and no religion: heauen and no heauen: yea God and no God. Neither doth it depart into heauen; for hee was there before,Act 3, 21. and the heauens containe him vntill the times of reſtitution of all things. Beſides, he ſhould eueryevery day aſcend; which ouerthroweth our faith, and withall ouerturneth the truth of his aſcenſion, and bringeth in a ſtrange maner of his taking vp, neuer beleeued, or receiued, or deliuered, or dreamed of in the Church. Furthermore, as the body of Chriſt is firſt ſuppoſed to be receiued and then the blood: ſo the body ſhould firſt aſcēd without the blood, and afterward the blood alone without the body. Laſtly, as wel we may hold and beleeue, that he dyeth often, riſeth againe often, is conceiued and borne oftentimes, as hold his continual and daily aſcenſion. Thus alſo we may reaſon cō cerning the wine: If it be turned into the blood of Chriſt, what becommeth of that blood? Either it muſt neceſſarily paſſe into our ſubſtance: and then Chriſts blood ſhould be mingled with our blood, as the blood of the Galileans was mingled with their ſacrifices, Lu. 13.Luk. 13, 1. Or elſe it muſt periſh and come to nothing: and then it ſhould dry vp as water, and vaniſh away as ſmoake, & conſume as a vapour. Or laſtly, it muſt returne into heauen, which doth ouerturne his aſcending from the earth, in as much as it was there before. And as there can no other way be deuiſed, ſo none of theſe can ſtand either with diuinity or philoſophy; either with faith or reaſon: either with Scripture or nature: and therefore th ſe pillars being remoued, this tower of Babell, I mean the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, muſt of neceſsity fall to the ground. The 18. reaſon: If the Diſciples had not vnderſtood Chriſt to cal the bread his body ſacramentally: they would hauehave bin greatly troubled (who oftē doubted of the leaſt things) & demanded the vnderſtanding of thē. As the hearers of Chriſt I h. 6. ſuppoſing he had ſpoken of a carnall manner of eating hiseIoh. 6, 52, 60 fleſh, were troubled and offended, ſaying, How can this man giuegive vsus his fleſh to eate? And ver. 60. This is an hard ſaying, who can heare …t? Wherfore, who ſeeth not that they would hauehave maruelled and required farther, if they had vnderſtood Chriſt to hauehave changed the bread into his body, and the wine into his blood? But they doubt not, they demand not, they maruell not, they murmure not, & therefore beleeue not this iugling of tranſubſtantiation or turning of one ſubſtance into another. And if they beleeued it not, how ſhould we receiue it? If they receiued it not, how ſhould we beleeue it?

The 19. argument: It ouerturneth ſundry Articles of ou… Chriſtian faith. We beleeue that Chriſt Ieſus was begotten of the Father before al worlds, and borne in time of the Virgin Mary: this the Scripture teacheth, this the Creed deliuereth: this eueryevery true Chriſtian profeſſeth & beleeueth. But if the bread bee tranſubſtantiated into the bodye of Chriſt, and the wine into the blood of Chriſt: then his body is made and borne of bread and wine, and the Prieſt after the words of conſecration may ſay, a little pretty ſon is borne vntounto vsus, and newly made. Wherefore, in the Miſſal of Sarum after that the Prieſt hath conſecrated, hee maketh a low leg, worſhipping the worke of his owne hands, and ſaith, Aue: which is as much as God ſaue you Sir; or, you are welcome to towne.

Againe, we beleeue that Chriſt was crucified and dyed for our ſinnes, that he was buried, roſe againe, aſcended, & ſitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty. But if the body of Chriſt be made of bread as often as the Euchariſt is celebrated, then Chriſt being on the Croſſe might be elſewhere then on the Croſſe: when he dyed, he might be where he ſuffered nothing: lying in the graue, he might be out of the graue: yea he might be in the graue after his reſurrection and riſing out of the graue: wherof notwithſtanding the Angels ſaid,fMat 28, 5. he is not heere. Laſtly, wee beleeue that Chriſt ſhal come from heauen to iudge the quick and dead, and that in the ſame manner he aſcended,gReuel. 1, 7. whō we doubt not but men ſhall ſee, as Reuel. 1.7. EueryEvery eye ſhall ſee him, yea euen they which pierced him through. But if Chriſts body be made of bread, he ſhall ſtare and ſtart out of the pixe, and not come from heauen, and that in another ſhape then when he aſcended: nay thus he ſhould come daily vntounto vsus, and yet no man can ſee him, nor perceiue his comming. All theſe deuices ouerthrow the foundation of faith, ſauour of nouelty, and bring in hereſie againſt all certaine grounds of true religion.

The 20, argument: If by vertue of Chriſts words, tranſubſtantiation were brought to paſſe, and the true bodye of Chriſt were really preſent on the earth: then the bread ſhould be changed into whole Chriſt, that is, into his body indued with his magnitude, quantity, quality, colour, & all his dimenſions. For Chriſt ſaid not at his Supper, this is the ſubſtance of my body without accidents: buthLuk. 21.16. 1 Cor. 11, 24. This is my body wh ch is giuen for you, and which is broken for you. Therefore the body was viſible and ſeene of them al it was felt, it had all accidents agreeable thereunto, and the ſubſtance of Chriſts body alone without his qualities was not crucified on the Croſſe, neither yet could be crucified. Notwithſtanding, we ſee not Chriſts body vponupon the earth, nor any adioynt thereof is perceiued or diſcerned. Where are they then? Are they in the ſubſtance of Chriſts body which is in heauen? And not in the ſubſtance of his body which is on the earth? Then they make Chriſt to hauehave two diſtinct bodies: for one and the ſame body cannot hauehave his properties and dimenſions, and yet be without them, which neceſſarily implyeth a contradiction, & conſequently falſehood: eſpecially conſidering how great a difference they make betweene the body of Chriſt in heauen, and this body that lyeth and lurketh vnderunder the accidents and ſhewes of bread in their boxe.

The 21. reaſon: It deſtroyeth the nature of a true body, it taketh away the defence vſed againſt hereticks, & bringeth in the hereſies of Marcion, of Eutyches, and the Manichies, whichiAuguſt. ad Quod vult de. denyed Chriſt to hauehave a ſolid, and true humane body, and held that he had onelyonly a phantaſticall body without any materiall fleſh, blood, or bone, in appearance and ſight ſomewhat, but in deed and ſubſtance nothing. For they teach that his body is in infinite places at once, and thoſe diſcontinued, void of quantity and quality, not circumſcribed, not viſible, nor any way ſenſible: that being in heauen, he is really and corporally on earth, though not in the diſtance betweene heauen and earth, nor in thoſe places where the hoſt is not: which is to aſsigne innumerable bodies to our Sauiour Chriſt, and conſequently to make him no body, which is in effect as much as to deny he is come in the fleſh,k1 Ioh 4, 3. and 2 Ioh. 7. which is the very doctrine of Anti-Chriſt himſelfe, as Iohn ſpeaketh, EueryEvery ſpirit that confeſſeth not, that Ieſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh, is not of God: but this is the ſpirit of Anti-Chriſt of whom ye hauehave heard. And in his 2. Epiſtle, Many deceiuers are entred into the world, which confeſſe not that Ieſus Chriſt is come in the fleſh: he that is ſuch a one, is a deceiuer and an Anti-Chriſt. But Occam propoundeth this as the doctrine of the ſchooles, thatlOccam. in cen. tilo. …hee…. concluſ. 25, 26. The body of Chriſt is eueryevery where, as God is eueryevery where, and that if there were an hoſt that filled all the world, the body of Chriſt might be with eueryevery part thereof when it ſhould be conſecrated. And Holcot treading in the ſame ſteps of the ſchooles, not of the Scriptures ſaith, If there had beene a thouſand hoſts in a thouſand places at the ſame time that Chriſt did hang vponupon the Croſſe, mHo…cot. in 4. lib ſentent. quaeſt. 2.Chriſt had beene crucified in a thouſand places. But it is an vnſeparable property of bodies to be locall and contained in place:nAuguſt. epiſt. 57. ad Dardan. take away ſpace of place, and true dimenſions from bodies, and they are no where, as Auguſtine teacheth. Beſides, hence the Fathers concluded the truth of Chriſts body, becauſeoLuk. 24 39. he might be ſeene & handled, and becauſe he had fleſh and bones, according to the Scriptures, Behold my hands and my feete, for it is I my ſelfe: handle me and ſee: for a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, as yee ſee that I hauehave. But if he be neither ſeene nor handled in the Sacrament, nor diſcerned to hauehave fleſh and bones: how ſhall his humanity be holden and maintained againſt hereticks impugning the ſame?

The 22. reaſon: It taketh away all iudgement from the ſenſes, and maketh the Sacrament of truth to be a Sacramēt of forgery & falſehood: for the ſenſes of ſeeing, of taſting, of touching, of handling, and ſmelling, do iudge bread & wine to be in the Sacrament, and not mans fleſh truely and properly: neither canpAri…t. lib. 2. de anim cap. 6. all the ſenſes bee deceiued in their proper obiects, as euen the Philoſophers themſelues doe teach, and that truely.

The 23. reaſon: It is an horrible acte and vnnatural cruelty for man to eate mans fleſh, and for man to drinke mans blood: and therefore the Papiſts are as inhumane as the Cyclopes, Cannibals, and other barbarous people. It is more bruitiſh and barbarousqAuguſt de doctr… Chriſt. lib. 3 cap. 16. Cyril. anat. 11. to eate mans fleſh, then to kill a man: and to drinke mans blood then to ſhed it. Thus they make Chriſtian people eaters of mans fleſh and blood-ſuckers, which is beaſtly and horrible wickedneſſe, which is threatned oftentimes as a puniſhment, Reuel. 16, 6. and Ezekiel 39, 17, 18. and noted as a thing vnlawfull, 1 Chron. 11, 19.

The 24. reaſon: the Apoſtle maketh an oppoſition betweene the table of the Lord, and the table of Diuels, ſaying,r1 Cor. 10, 20.21. Ye cannot drinke the cup of the Lord, and the cup of diuels: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of diuels: where he ſheweth, that to eate the fleſh offered vntounto Idols is to be partakers of the Idols, as the bread which we breake, is the participation and communion of the body of the Lord. Hence he concludeth, that they ſhould not eate of thoſe things which the Gentiles ſacrifice to Idols, becauſe they hauehave fellowſhip with the Diuels that eate of them, euen as they are vnited to Chriſt which partake of the bread in the Supper. If then the fleſh offered to Idols be not tranſubſtantiated: why ſhould the ſacramentall bread be turned into the body of Chriſt, ſeeing it ſufficeth to make vsus partakers of the Lords body, to eat of the bread; as it was ſufficient to make them partakers of the Idols, to eate of the things offered vntounto them?

The 25. reaſon: If the inſtitution of Chriſt be a ſufficient direction vntounto the Church what to hold in this queſtion, we ſhall eaſily giuegive this tranſubſtantiation a fall. Wee ſee in the caſes of matrimony that did befall, our Sauiour bringeth them to the firſt inſtitution, and thereby diſſolueth the doubts and difficulties that aroſe, ſaying,ſMat 19, 3. 4, 8. From the beginning it was not ſo. So when any controuerſie ariſeth about the Lords Supper, the ordinance of Chriſt is able to take it vp, how great or grieuous ſoeuer it grow. Now there is no ſentence, no word, no ſillable, no iot, no title in the deſcription of the Supper, that fauoureth or ſauoureth of tranſubſtantiation, or ſignifieth and inſinuateth any ſuch matter. True it is, Chriſt ſaith,tMat. 26, 26. This is my body, but to be, doth not ſignifie to tranſubſtantiate: for then when he ſaith,uIoh. 15 1. & 10, 7. & 14, 6. I am the true vine, I am the doore, the way, and ſuch like, he ſhall be turned and tranſubſtantiated into a natural vine, into a materiall doore into an high way, from whence would follow infinite abuſe; and abſurdities. Beſides, if the word (is) in the inſtitution ſignifie, is tranſubſtantiated, that is, changed from one ſubſtance into another, from bread into fleſh, from wine into blood: then the change ſhould be made before all the words be vttered, ſo that hence it wold follow, that it cannot be done by vertue of the words, which goeth before the pronouncing of the words.

Laſt of all, the maintainers of tranſubſtantiation, as the builders of Babell, hauehave their tongues diuided, and their languages confounded: they cannot accord together, but vary and diſſent one from another,aMar. 14, 56. like the falſe witneſſes that aroſe againſt Chriſt. Firſt, they know not certainely, whether the bread bee turned into his body, or come in place thereof, the ſubſtance departing. Secondly, ſome a-low not theſe ſpeeches,bThom. p. 3. qu. 75 art. 3. bread is Chriſts body, or bread is made Chriſts body: but will hauehave it ſaid, Chriſts body is made of bread:cCanon, conuertantur. others condemne this ſpeech alſo, that bread is made chriſts body. Thirdly, they know not what is brokē, whether bread, or accidents, or nothing: others ſay, the true body of Chriſt is broken. Fourthly, they agree not, whether their water in the chalice mingled with wine, bee tranſubſtantiated: ſome ſay it is, other ſay it is not: ſome more ſober then the reſt, are afraid what to ſay,dDurand. li. 4. and aske who is able to decide the queſtion? Others ſay it is turned into the humors of his body: others vnknit the knot thus, that the water is turned into the wine, & then the wine into his blood, and therefore are circumſpect to giuegive this cautel that a little water be mingled, being afraid leaſt if more water were put in then, the wine, the wine ſhould be tranſubſtantiated into water. Fiftly, they cannot agree with what words their conſecration is wrought, whether accidents be without their ſubiect, whether the accidēts nouriſh no leſſe then the ſubſtance of bread and wine: likewiſe what the rats and mice do eate: how and from whence the wormes are oftentimes ingendered in their Euchariſt, & ſo conſume it: whether the ſhewes of bread be the body without the blood, & the ſhewes of wine the blood without the body. Sixtly, ſoone after the Apoſtles had receiued the Supper into their ſtomackes,Luk. 22, 44. Chriſt Ieſus did ſweate great drops of blood trickling downe to the ground, and was afterward buffetted, mocked, ſpit vponupon, and crucified. Now they dare not ſay that this body of Ieſus ſo ſpitefully and contumeliouſly intreated, ſwet any drops of blood in the ſtomacks of the Apoſtles, or was by the Souldiors apprehended and buffetted vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, and therefore they make at one & the ſame time a double Chriſt; one Chriſt ſuffering in the garden and on the Croſſe: another not ſuffering in the Diſciples: one Chriſt apprehended, and another not apprehended: one Chriſt ſweating, another not ſweating; one Chriſt buffetted by the Souldiors, and another not buffetted. Seauenthly, they confeſſe that Chriſt both adminiſtred and participated of this Sacrament with his Apoſtles, whereof will follow that Chriſt did eate himſelfe and did drinke himſelfe: and ſeeing they hold his body is in the cuppe, they muſt alſo hold that hee did drinke his owne body. From whence ariſeth a flat and expreſſe contradiction: for to ſay that the body of Chriſt was all whole in his ſtomacke, is to affirme that that which is within, containeth that which is without, as if the ſcabberd were in the ſword, or the cup in the wine, or the purſe in the mony. Thus they make the outward part to bee within the inner, and without the inner, that is, without and not without: yea, whereas they affirme that the body of our Lord is greater then the formes of bread which containe it, they make that which is contained greater then that which doth containe it, that is, the treaſure wider and larger then the casket in which it is locked: contrary to al the rules of reaſon, the principles of nature, and the maximes of the Mathematicks. Eightly, they ſay, that the body of Chriſt is all whole in heauen, and all whole in the pixe, and yet they renounce the Vbiquity of his bodye, and holde that hee is not in place betwixt both, ſo that they make a diſtance betweene the body of Chriſt, and the body of Chriſt; and therefore withall they make him lower then himſelfe and higher then himſelfe, and ſeparated from himſelfe. Ninthly, they teach that the body of Chriſt in the Maſſe, hath all the dimenſions and parts of an humane body diſtinct in their naturall ſcituation: and yet they teach, that there is not ſo ſmall a piece of the hoſt where that body is not whole, ſo that his head ſhall bee where his feet are, and his feet where his head is. And touching his blood, they ſay it is ſhed in the Maſſe, and yet notwithſtanding they call it an vnbloody ſacrifice, ſo that by their reckoning, there is blood not bloody, and a ſhedding of blood not bloody; as if a man ſhould ſay, whiteneſſe which is not white, heate which is not hot, or coldneſſe which is not cold. Thus they had rather ſay and vnſay, and be at diſcord with themſelues, then to accord with vsus and the truth. They thinke it reaſon to deny all reaſon, & a ſenceleſſe thing to be iudged by the ſenſes. Theſe opē and euident contradictions ſo ſtifly auouched & ſtoutly defended, that an humane body ſhould fill no place, and yet ſhould be in an hundred thouſand diuers places, hauehave length without being extended, & be whole in eueryevery crum of the bread, are ſo groſſe and palpable abſurdities, that they do eſtrange the Turkes and Infidels from imbracing the Chriſtian religion.Auerrhoes. It is noted of an Arabian Spaniard writing vponupon the 12. booke of the Metaphyſickes, that his ſoule ſhould hold with the Philoſophers, ſince the Chriſtians worſhip that which they eate. The Pagans mocke at this as a brutiſh conceite,Cicer. de nat. Deor. lib 3. as among others it appeareth by Tully in his third booke of the nature of the Gods, who ſaith thus: Thinkeſt thou any man to be ſo mad as to beleeue that that which he eateth is his God? So that this monſtrous deuice imbraced in the Church of Rome, as a maine pillar that holdeth vppe the houſe, hindreth the faith, offendeth the ignorant, bringeth the doctrine of Chriſt into reproach, hardeneth the hearts of the enemies of the Goſpell, and mingleth heauen and earth together.

It were infinitecSee D. Sutl. de m…ſſ. l b. 5. cap. 10. to note out all their contentions and contradictions: theſe may ſuffice to ſhew how the enemies of God fight one againſt another, and al of them with their owne ſhaddowes. And thus much of the late doting deuice of tranſubſtantiation, which is the ſoule & life of their popiſh religion: the denyers or doubters wherof, they purſue with fire and ſword more eagerly, then ſuch as are enemies to the bleſſed Trinity.

The laſt generall vſe is this: If Chriſt deliuered both theſe ſignes, not onelyonly the bread, but the wine alſo to his Diſciples: then both kinds by the Miniſter are to be deliuered,fChriſts people muſt receiue the ſupper vnderunder both kinds. and both kinds by the people are to be receiued, not bread alone, nor wine alone, but bread and wine: the bread in token of his body giuen for vsus, and the wine in token of his blood ſhed for vsus. This is the ordinance of Chriſt: this is agreeable to the Scripture. Notwithſtanding, the church of Rome hath decreed, that it is not neceſſary for the people to communicate in both kinds, & holdeth themgCon. Trident. ſeſſ. 21, cap. 2. accurſed that hold it neceſſary for the people to receiue the cup, conſecrated by the Prieſt. Thus it appeareth they labor nothing more, then to take from the faithfull the ſweet comfort of the Lords Supper. This is a ſacrilegious corruptiō of Chriſts inſtitution, deuiſed by Sathan, broached by Antichriſt, publiſhed by his adherents in the corrupt times of moſt palpable darkneſſe, as may appeare by theſe reaſons.

Firſt, if none may drinke of the conſecrate wine but the Prieſts, then none ſhould eate of the bread but Prieſts: ſo that they muſt either exclude the people from both, which I truſt they dare not; or admit them to both, which as yet they do not. For to whom Chriſt ſaid,hMat. 26, 26.27. Take and eate, to thoſe gaue he the cup and ſaid, Drinke ye. Wherefore, the ſignes being both equall, all communicants muſt drinke of the one, as well as eate of the other, there being the ſame warrant for the one, that there is for the other, and the let that would barre the one, will hinder the other: ſo asiMat. 19, 6. the things which God in his goodneſſe hath ioyned together, man without ſinne cannot ſeparate.

Secondly, when Chriſt inſtituted this Sacrament, he ſaid,kMat. 26, 27. Mar. 14, 23. 1 Cor. 12, 13. Drinke ye all of this: and by all he vnderſtood al the Communicants. And the Euangeliſt Marke addeth, They al drank of it, to wit, all that were preſent at his laſt Supper, who had before eaten of the bread of the Lord. This alſo appeareth by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12. They hauehave beene all made to drinke into one Spirit. This commandement of Chriſt being generall, impoſeth a neceſsity vponupon the people, when hee ſaith, Take ye, eate ye, drinke ye, doe ye this. Theſe commandements are perpetuall, vnchangeable, and alwayes in force: not arbitrary, not temporall, not repealed, but binde the conſcience to the end of the world, againſt which no limitation, or diſpenſation can be allowed, being the commandemētsl1 Cor. 14, 37 of God, not of man.

Thirdly, the cup is a part of Chriſts will and teſtament. Now touching the nature of a teſtament or will, the ſaying of the Apoſtle is knowne,mGal. 3, 15. Heb. 9, 16, 17. If it be but a mans teſtament, when it is confirmed, no man doth abrogate it, or addeth any thing thereto: where he ſheweth, that the dead mans will may not be changed, nothing can be put too, nothing taken out without forgery and falſhood. This is the law of nature and Nations. But the Lords Supper is a Sacrament proper to the new Teſtament, as Chriſt ſaith,nLuk, 22, 20. This cuppe is the new Teſtament in my blood which is ſhed for you. This teſtament the Lord Ieſus made the night before he was betrayed, he ſealed it by ſhedding his moſt precious blood, hee hath giuen legacies, not of earthly and temporall, but of heauenly and eternall goods. And ſeeing he hath appointed the cup of this his teſtament to be deliuered and drunke of al thoſe for whom his blood was ſhed: it is intollerable boldnes and preſumption to take away the vſe thereof from the greater part of the Church, and an infallible token of an vnſhamefaſt and ſhameleſſe harlot, to alter her husbands wil, to defraud and defeat his children of that worthy portion which their father allotted them, and ſo to keepe backe part of their inheritance and poſſeſsion.

Fourthly, the blood of Chriſt ſhed vpō the Croſſe belongeth not only to the Paſtors and teachers, but to al the faithfull that come to the table of the Lord, as appeareth by the words of Chriſt,oMat. 26, 28. Luk. 22, 20. This is my blood which is ſhed for you and for many: why then ſhould the blood of Chriſt be denyed, or the cup of the Lord be barred from thē? If then the blood of Chriſt were ſhed for the people, as well as for the Miniſters: ſurely the cup belongeth to one as well as to the other. If the people hauehave the greater, who ſhal keep thē from the leſſe? If they hauehave their part in the thing ſignified, who ſhall deny them of the outward ſigne? For as the fruite and effect of the blood of Chriſt is common to the people with the Paſtor: ſo ſhould the cup alſo, which is the communion of his blood ſhed for the redemption of the peoples ſins, be diuided indifferently betweene the Paſtor and the people.

Fiftly, thep1 Cor. 11, 23 Apoſtle deliuered that to the church which he had receiued from the Lords Ieſus: Now the church ought diligently to obſerue the written traditions and verities of the Apoſtles, which are committed to poſterity to be kept inuiolably. But he hath deliuered, how the Lord after taking, bleſsing, breaking, and diſtributing of the bread, likewiſe tooke the cup, bleſſed, and diſtributed it among them, ſo ſaith the Apoſtle muſt the churches do. If then he receiued this from the Lord, to deluer both kinds to the people; let the Church of Rome conſider with her ſelfe, frō whence ſhe hath receiued the contrary, to with-hold one of the kinds from the people: for both cānot proceed from one & the ſame ſpirit of truth, which is neuer contrary to it ſelfe.

Sixtly, if all the faithfull that come to the Lords Table, muſt ſhew forth the Lords death vntill he come, and this be done by them as wel by drinking of the cup, as by eating of the bread: then all the communicants muſt receiue the Sacrament vnderunder both kinds,q1 Cor. 11, 26 vntill the ſecond comming of Chriſt. But the faithful muſt ſhew forth the Lords death by eating of that bread & drinking of that cup, as the Apoſtle teacheth, As often as ye ſhall eate this bread, and drinke of this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death vntill he come. Therefore, all communicants muſt partake the Sacrament vnderunder both kinds.

Seuenthly, the Apoſtle giueth an expreſſe commandement to the whole church, which all muſt obey that come worthily to this holy table, Let a man examine himſelfe, r1 Cor. 11, 2….and ſo let him eate of this bread, & drinke of this cup. Where he giueth a double commandement, firſt to prepare reuerently, then to receiue worthily. Now al that muſt proue and try themſelues, are commanded not only to eate bread, but to drinke of the cup: but al muſt try and examine themſelues: therefore all are commanded both to eate & drinke at the Lords table. If this be a commandement to examine: then the words following of eating and drinking, are likewiſe commandements. There is no haulting in theſe, let them admit both, or let them deny both.

Eightly, if the faithfull take not the cup in the Supper of the Lord, the condition of Chriſtians vnderunder the Goſpell, ſhall be worſe then of the Iſraelites vnderunder the law. For the people of Iſrael in the wilderneſſe hauing the ſame Sacrament in effect with vsus,ſ1 Cor. 10, 4. Did all drink of the ſpiritual rocke that followed them, and that rocke was Chriſt, as the Apoſtle affirmeth. But our condition is not worſer & weaker thē theirs: therfore al the faithful are to drinke of the cup of the Lord. Bellarmine, the Souldan of the Romiſh Synagogue,tBellar. lib. 4. de Eucha ca. 27 anſwereth thus, They drunke not water out of the rocke when they did eat of the ſpirituall meat, but in another place & at another time. But this is an anſwereleſſe anſwere which cannot ſatisfie. For albeit the Sacramēts of the Iſraelites as figures & types did repreſent, the ſame graces that our Sacraments do: yet it is not neceſſary they ſhould in all points anſwere each other, and in all reſpects agree together. Beſides, the church of Rome at no time alloweth the people to drinke of the Wine, a ſeale of the blood of Chriſt: they keepe them from the cup of the Lord, both when they giuegive them the bread, and at all other times, and thereby make their eſtate worſer then the eſtate of the Iewes. Indeed, if they did at any time permit al the people to drink of the cup, they might pretend this example of the Iſraelites: but inaſmuch as they vtterly deny them this part of the cup, they ouerthrow thē ſelues in their malice, and yet in their blindnes they do not ſee it. Finally, many of the Fathers did both eate Manna, and drinke water out of the Rocke, if not in the ſame place, yet at one and the ſame time,nExod. 16, 21 inaſmuch as they gathered thereof eueryevery morning, and it ceaſed notaIoſh. 5, 12. vntill they entred the frontiers and confines of the land of promiſe. But they neuer allow without a tolleration and diſpenſation, the people in any place, at any time, vponupon any occaſion, and in any reſpect, to taſte of the cup in the Lords Supper.

Ninthly, if the cup of the new teſtament may bee taken from the Lords people: in like manner the water in baptiſme may be taken away from thē. For the blood of Chriſt, whereby remiſsion of ſins is purchaſed and procured, is repreſented by the wine of the Lords Supper, as well as by the water in baptiſme. But the water in baptiſme without great ſacriledge, cannot be omitted or neglected: wherefore then ſhould the cup be taken away.

Tenthly, in the matter of the Supper our aduerſaries alledge the words of Chriſt in Iohn, Iohn 6.If you drinke not my blood, you ſhall hauehave no life in you. If theſe words be thus to be vnderſtood, then by depriuing them of the cup, they depriue the people of life and ſaluation.

Againe, if drinking of the chalice be a priuiledge of the Clergy, how commeth it to paſſe that Kings and Princes hauehave a part in this priuiledge? How is it that they are permitted as well to drinke of the conſecrated wine, as to eate of the conſecrated bread? But heerein was a notable piece of cunning & a great point of policy vſed, partly to aduāce the dignity of the Clergy, and partly to ſtop the mouthes of Princes. For as by this order or rather diſorder, the proud Clergy are made companions with Kings and Princes, euen equall vntounto them, ſo they thinke to hood-winke them & make them content to ſwallow the reſt of their ſuperſtitions, becauſe they are pleaſed to grace thē with this priuiledge aboue the people as with a ſpeciall fauour.

Moreouer, it is not to be omitted, that a principall end of this Sacrament was inſtituted to ſet foorth the death of Chriſt, not onelyonly as an idle narration, but as a profitable application thereof to the conſcience. How then ſhall the people know that the fruite of ſhedding his precious blood belongeth vntounto them as the nouriſhment of their ſoules, except beſides the looking vponupon the cuppe, they be partakers of it? It is therefore neceſſary to vnderſtand by eating and drinking, that God doth not nouriſh them by halfes, but that Chriſt yeeldeth whole nouriſhmēt vntounto them. Such then are worthily taxed of raſhnes themſelues that complaine how the people raſhly preſume to receiue the Sacrament vnderunder both kindes: for as well they might ſay, that it is raſhneſſe and preſumption to imitate and follow Chriſt. And they may iuſtly be condemned of hereſie, who pronounce them hereticks and worthy to be puniſhed by the ſecular power, that ſpeake againſt receiuing in one kind onelyonly; as if it were hereſie to follow the example of Chriſt left to the Church. For what remaineth more but to proceed one degree farther, euen to pronounce Chriſt himſelfe an Arch-heretick, and all the Apoſtles hereticks alſo, and to condemne them to the Inquiſition as deceiuers and impoſtors ſeducing and miſleading the people?

Laſtly, if any part of the Supper might be taken away from the people: then likewiſe the word of God may bee taken from them, for in this point there is the ſame reaſon and reſpect of them both. A Sacrament is nothing elſe but a viſible word, and a ſealing vp of the word: and the offence ſeemeth to be the ſame, whether a man breake the ſeale, or rent the writing. But the word cannot be withdrawne from Chriſtian people, it being the inſtrument of faith, and the life of the Church. Wherefore it is the greateſt wrong and iniury done to the people of God to take from them the cup of ſaluation. The anſwere to this reaſon muſt be, to confeſſe the parts and yeeld the concluſion; foraſmuch as by forbidding the people the reading of the ſcriptures, they hauehave robbed them of the word of God, and taken from thembLuk. 11, 52. the key of knowledge, neither entring themſelues into the kingdome of heauen, nor ſuffering thoſe that would enter. No maruaile then, if they take the cup of bleſsing from the people, who hauehave taken from them the free vſe of the word of God. To conclude theſe reaſons▪ it is Antichriſt, who contrary to the doctrine of Chriſt, contrary to the inſtitution of the Supper, contrary to the practiſe of the Apoſtles, and contrary to the vſe of the former churches, hath excluded the people languiſhing and thirſting after the blood of Chriſt, as the dry earth for the ſweet ſhowers of raine, frō taking the cup of the Lord, and left them a dry communion to eate the bread of the Sacrament alone. Hauing conſidered the truth of God by ſundry reaſons grounded in the Scripture, that the people hauehave good intereſt and title in the cup denyed vntounto them: let vsus anſwere thecObiections for taking …he cup from the people of god Ariſt in Top. Cicer. lib 1 ad Heren. et de Orator. obiections of the aduerſaries, made againſt the former doctrine. For it is not ſufficient onelyonly to teach the truth▪ and to confirme our owne cauſe, except wee labour ſoundly to infringe and confute the contrary. Firſt, they pretend that Chriſt adminiſtred it to the apoſtles onelyonly, and not to any of the people: and conſequently the inſtitution, for taking the cup can be no generall commandement for al men: thusdRhem. Teſt. vponupon Mat. 26. and Mar. 14. the Rhemiſts reaſon without reaſon. I anſwere, firſt it may bee doubted and diſputed, whether onelyonly the Apoſtles were preſent at his laſt Supper. For ſeeing diuers were added vntounto the Church, and profeſſed the faith of Chriſt, ſeeing he had other Diſciples beſide the twelue, ſeeing many godly men and women followed him to ſee his miracles▪ & to heare the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth: why ſhould wee thinke that none of them were admitted to his table, who had often heard his preaching▪ and depended vponupon him in their liuing. Againe, the Paſſeouer was celebrated in the houſeeMat 26, 17.18. of a faithfull man, as may be collected by ſundry circumſtances: now then, either the Lord Ieſus annexed that family vntounto his, as the law in one caſe appointed; or elſe we ſhall hauehave two Paſſeouers at one time in one houſe, which hath no warrant of Scripture, no colour of truth, no probability of reaſon. We reade in the inſtitution and celebration of the Paſſeouer, of ioyning houſe to houſe,fExod. 1…, 4. and taking his neighbour next vntounto him in caſe of the inſufficiency of one houſhold to eate the Lambe: but we neuer reade of killing two lambes, and keeping two Paſſeouers vnderunder one roofe. Beſides, the ſmall remnant of the faithfull among the Iewes would no doubt rightly and religiouſly obſerue the Paſſeouer after the example of their Lord and Maiſter, rather according to thegExod 13, 6. precept of Moſes, then according to the practiſe of the Iewes: in imitation of Chriſt,hIoh 13.1. …am 18, 18. rather then according to the tradition of the Elders. Furthermore, we are to conſider, that in eating the Paſſeouer, they ſorted themſelues together, according to the number of the perſons able to eate vp the lambe: for they were commanded to takeiExod. 12, 4, 5 A lambe without blemiſh, a male of a yeare old: and if the houſhold be too little for the lambe, he ſhall take his neighbour which is next vntounto his houſe. Now Chriſt with his twelue diſciples alone, were not ſufficient to eate vp this Lambe of a yeare old, eſpecially if the Syrian kinde were great & large, as may be ſuppoſed by thekAriſt hiſtor. Anno lib 6. cap 28 P…r h…ſ…. natur. l b cap. 98 deſcription of Ariſtotle, Pliny, and others. Neither doth it appeare that any remained, or was burned with fire,lExod. 12, 10. according to the inſtitution of God, becauſe the Euangeliſts declare, that ſo ſoone as the Supper was adminiſtred and a pſalme ſung of thankſgiuing,mMat 2…, 30. they went out into the Mount of Oliues. Why then ſhould wee not think that Chriſt added & annexed other to his family, ſeeing his owne diſciples ſufficed not, eſpecially the bleſſed Virgin his mother who was not long from him?nIoh. 19, 26.27. whom afterward, after his departure, he commended and committed to Iohn, to be protected and prouided for, who from that time tooke her home to his houſe as his owne mother. To conclude, we muſt conſider, that beſides the lambe killed for the Paſſeouer, (whereby they were not all ſatisfied) they had other meate to make vp their Supper, as appeareth by the broth wherein the ſoppe was dipped, Math. 26, 23. Mark. 14, 20. Iohn 13, 26. For the Lambe commanded by the ordinance of God to bee roaſted, had no ſauce or broth appointed, but onelyonly ſowre hearbes preſcribed, Exodus 12. So ther,Fulk on Mat. 16. the learned obſerue that there were three Suppets that night: the firſt of the Pafchall Lambe, of which the Euangeliſts ſay, The Paſſeouer was prepared. The ſecond was an ordinary ſupper to feed and nouriſh the body, ſuch as was daily receiued, whereunto wee muſt referre the dipping of the ſoppe in the platter, inaſmuch as the Paſſeouer had no ſuch ordinance. The third was after both the other, to wit, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper inſtituted to feed the ſoule, and therefore was taken after the body was fedde. Moreouer, when the Diſciples were ſent to prepare a place to eate the Paſſeouer, the man whom they met bearing a pitcher of water ſhewed them a large vpper roome furniſhed and prepared: Mar. 14.15.now what need had there beene of ſuch a large chamber, if twelue gueſts onelyonly had ſate therein? Wherefore albeit we confeſſe according to the Scripture, that he ſate downe with the twelue, yet it followeth not heereupon that the twelue onelyonly were preſent, but that all the twelue were preſent at the Paſſeouer. It was indeed prepared and prouided for the Diſciples, Mathew 26. 18. Luke 22.11. but he had moe Diſciples then they, beleeuing in his name, and profeſsing the truth that they had learned of him; and are oftentimes diſtinguiſhed from the twelue, which he called his Apoſtles.Ioh. 6, 66, 67.

But to leaue theſe conſiderations as coniectures, wee anſwere the former obiection, that inaſmuch as Chriſt deliuered both ſignes to the ſame perſons, they might bar the people from the bread as well as from the cuppe. For I would know why the bread is neceſſary, but becauſe it was inſtituted by Chriſt, and retained by his Apoſtles? Wherefore, the inſtitution maketh the one as requiſite as the other. Beſides, if other hereticks ſhould ariſe, as great enemies to the peoples partaking of the bread, as the Church of Rome is to their communicating of the cuppe of the Lord: how might they better be repreſſed and refelled, then by alledging the firſt inſtitution of Chriſt, and ſhewing the practiſe of the Apoſtles? So that the reaſons broght to confute the one, will ſerue directly to ouerthrow the other.

Moreouer, the Diſciples at the firſt miniſtration of the Supper, performed not the office of the Miniſter, nor any part of his duty, but of the people; Chriſt was the Miniſter thereof, he tooke the bread he bleſſed, he gaue the bread, ſaying, This is my body. Likewiſe hee tooke the cup, bleſſed, and gaue the ſame, ſaying, This cup is the new teſtament in my blood. On the other ſide, the Diſciples tooke it, did eate and drinke, which are the proper duties of all the people. Laſtly, the Apoſtle ſaith not in the firſt perſon, we eate and drinke, as ſpeaking of himſelfe and other teachers of the Church: but directing his ſpeech to alo1 Cor. 1, 2. that are called and ſanctified in Chriſt in eueryevery place, (according to the inſcription of the epiſtle) he ſaith, As often as ye ſhall eate this bread p1 Cor. 11, 26and drinke this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death till he come. Now theſe Corinthians to whom he eſpecially wrote, could not liue vntil the ſecond comming of Chriſt to iudgement: therefore this eating & this drinking belongeth to vsus that liue in theſe daies, and to all that cal vponupon the name of God to the end of the world.

Obiection 2 Secondly, they obiect againſt the former truth, this out of Acts 2. They continued in the Apoſtles doctrine, and in breaking of bread: and cha. 20. They came together to breake bread. It is not ſaid, to deliuer the cup vntounto the people,qAct. 2, 42. and 20, 7. but to breake bread: whereby they gather, it was miniſtred vntounto the people in one kinde onelyonly, and not in both. I anſwere, Anſwere. by a common Synecdoche, one part is put for the whole. For among the Hebrewes, this phraſe in Scripture, to eate bread, is to receiue whole nouriſhment and full refreſhing by eating and drinking: as appeareth byrEſay. 58, 7. Lamon. 4, 4. M…t. 15, 33. Acts 20, 11. many places, where mentioning onelyonly bread for food, it were madneſſe to imagine and gather that they drunke not. Beſides, the Apoſtle ſometimes putteth the other part, to wit, drinking of theſ1 Cor 12, 13 cuppe, for the whole celebration of the Supper, as when he ſaith, By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, and hauehave beene all made to drinke into one Sp…rit: where we ſee, as our Sauiour added the vniuerſall note, drinke ye all of this: and as the Euangeliſt Marke accordeth, ſaying, They all dranke of it: ſo the Apoſtle doth not pretermit it, but ſaith, All were made to drinke: as if the Lord Ieſus, the Euangeliſts and the Apoſtles would preuent before hand, the corruption that followed in the Church of Rome. Wherefore, ſeeing drinking of the cup, doth not properly note out the whole action, becauſe no man was euer ſo groſly blinded, to ſuppoſe that the cup might be alone adminiſtred: it followeth, that by this member expreſſed, we muſt vnderſtand the other, and by one part the whole. Furthermore, it is a ruled caſe among themſelues, that it is flat ſacriledge, if a Prieſt conſecrate not this Sacrament in both kindes, but do it in bread onelyonly. If then the former Scriptures, Act. 2. and chap, 20. proue the receiuing vnderunder one kinde, becauſe bread onelyonly is expreſſed, and ſo the cup to bee excluded: it will likewiſe follow, they conſecrated in one kinde, becauſe the wine is not expreſſed: and therefore by theſe places, neither Prieſt nor people ſhould take the cup, if they will not admit a trope or figure. Neither can they ſay, that Luke deſcribeth not what the Apoſtles conſecrated or receiued, but what they deliuered to the people: for the Euangeliſt declareth, Acts 20, 11. not onelyonly that the Apoſtle brake the bread buttAct. 20, 7. did eate there of himſelfe; ſo that they muſt confeſſe, that Paul alſo receiued in one kinde, and conſecrated in one kinde, or elſe neceſſarily grant one part put for the whole: as likewiſe we ſee, 1 Cor. 11. where he doth expreſly touch and teach both kindes,u1 Cor. 11, 26 27, 28, 29. to the eating of the bread ioyning the drinking of this cup: yet ſometimesa1 Cor. 11.20, 29, 33. he expreſſeth onelyonly the one ſigne for ſhortneſſe ſake; and the Church had receiued this vſuall manner of ſpeaking, to call the Lords Supper the breaking of bread, as verſe 20. When ye come together into one place, this is not to eate the Lords Supper: and verſe 33. When ye come together to eate, tarry one for another: likewiſe verſe 29 He diſcerneth not the Lords body: and yet in the ſentence going before, he ſaith that ſuch as eate and drinke vnworthily, doe eate and drinke their owne iudgement. Wherefore, as the Apoſtles alwayes celebrated the Supper by conſecration both of the bread and of the cuppe: ſo the people alwaies receiued in both theſe ki…des, to their great comfort and conſolation.

Thirdly, they pretend that Chriſt our Sauiour did eate Obiection 3 with the two Diſciples at Emaus, Luk. 24.30. where it is onelyonly ſaid, Ieſus tooke bread, and when he had giuen thanks, he brake it: Howbeit heere is no ſpeech of the cup at all, of taking it into his hands, and deliuering it into their hands. I anſwere, Anſwere. that the Euangeliſt ſpeaketh not of the Sacrament in this place, but of their ordinary repaſt for the ſuſtenance of the body. Secondly, ſuppoſe and admit that Chriſt had there adminiſtred the holy Supper, becauſe here is mention made of taking, and bleſsing, and breaking, and giuing of bread: yet it will not follow by any good conſequent, that there was no wine at all, becauſe Luke ſpeaketh of bread onelyonly; for it is ſaid in like manner that Ioſeph, made Gouernour of the land of Egypt, Gen. 43, 25. and 37, 25. Mat. 14, 19. Luk. 9, 16.inuited his brethren to eate bread: the meaning is not that they were bidden to a dry feaſt and dranke not at it, but one part is put for the whole nouriſhment. So are the words to be vnderſtood in this place, that they did eate & drinke together, hauing communed and trauelled together. If any man remaine obſtinate and will not be ſatisfied with theſe things, but aske further, how it will appeare that there was more then bread vſed among them, I referre him to the words of Peter preaching to Cornelius, Acts 10.Act. 10 40.41. where ſpeaking of Chriſt he ſaith, Him God raiſed vp the third day, and ſhewed him openly, not to al the people, but vntounto vsus witneſſes choſen before of God, euen to vsus that did eate and drinke with him after he roſe frō the dead. In which words the truth of his reſurrection is proued, by performing of ſuch actions as were ordinary & familiar: and albeit he be ſaid, not once or twice, but oftentimes to eate with them, Ioh. 21, 13. Luk. 24, 33, 43. yet Peter teſtifieth in this place that he did both eate & drinke, and ſo we are to vnderſtand theſe words. Laſtly, let them marke what will follow from theſe words being reſtrained to eating onelyonly: for thereby we gather, not onelyonly that the two diſciples did not drinke, but that Chriſt himſelfe drūke not, who is ſuppoſed to deliuer the Supper, for there is no ſpeech or mention of it, nor one ſillable touching any ſuch matter. And if Chriſt did not drinke, then the Prieſtes alſo ſhould be exempted from the neceſsity of partaking of the cup, which marreth all the market and merchandiſe of theſe halfe communions.

Obiection 4 Laſtly, they alledge that there is an vnion and coniunction of each ſigne, that the body is in the blood, and the blood in the body: that Chriſt is wholy and perfectly vnderunder each kinde, becauſe now in his glorious body,bConcomitantia. there is no ſeparation of the body from the blood, or blood from the body. I anſwere, Anſwere. ſurely if this were ſo, it were a fault and friuolous thing to do that by more, which may be done by fewer, to vſe two kindes, which may as well be done and is done vnderunder one, as a wiſe Philoſopher teacheth. Beſides, if one may reaſon in that ſort, the whole Supper might be abrogated, for we are made partakers of Chriſt indGal. 3, 27. baptiſm, and he dwelleth in our hearts byeHeb 3, 14, 15 Ephe. 3, 17. faith which commeth by the word of God. Againe, were not Chriſt and his Apoſtles as wiſe as they? Were they ignorant of this vnion? Did they not know this accompanying of the body with the blood, and blood with the body? Is the preſent church of Rome wiſer then he, in whom all thefCol. 1, 19. & 2, 3, 9. treaſures of wiſedome and knowledge are hid? If they thinke ſo, let them tell vsus plainely: if not, let them lay their hands vponupon their mouth, and ſubmit themſelues vntounto him who adminiſtred it in both kinds, and commanded his Apoſtles to doe the like. Moreouer, Chriſt would hauehave vsus in his Supper conſider his blood ſeparated from his body, and ſet his death before our eyes, and his precious blood ſhed out of his ſide: ſo that deliuering the cuppe, he ſaid,gMat. 26.27.28. Drinke ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new teſtament, which is ſhed for many, without which ſhedding, there ishHeb. 9, 22. no forgiueneſſe of ſins, as the Apoſtle teacheth. Wherefore, ſeeing theſe two are contrary one to the other, and cannot ſtand together; to wit, the blood to be in the body and to be out of the body, to be ſhed for vsus & not to be ſhed, and that the Sacrament leadeth vsus to the conſideration of the death; and eſpecially of the piercing of the body and pouring out of the blood of Chriſt: we may conclude, that thisiConcil. Trid. ſeſſ. 3. can. 3. vnion of the bodye with the blood, and blood with the body, flatly croſſeth and ouerthroweth the inſtitution of Chriſt. And why I pray you do their ſacrificing Prieſtes receiue the blood twice, and the body twice, drinking firſt the blood in the body, and againe eating the body in the blood? Nay, doth not this vnion deuiſed, alter the inſtitution of Chriſt, and confound the ſeuerall parts of it, making him to ſpeake otherwiſe then the Euangeliſts expreſſe? For when hee ſaide, This is my body, they will hauehave him meane, this is my body and blood: Againe; when he ſaid, this is my blood, they will hauehave him meane, this is my blood and my body. Laſt of all, this late inuention, turneth and ouerturneth the nature of the parts, diſtinguiſhed one from the other: while wee eate the fleſh they make vsus drinke the blood, and while we drinke the blood, they imagine we eate the body. Thus to eate and to drinke ſhall be all one with them: for we ſhall eate liquid and moiſt things, and we ſhall drinke dry and hard things. And is not this drinking of fleſh, and eating of blood, an inuerting & euerting of the nature of things? But thus God ſtriketh his enemies with giddineſſe of ſpirit. For after they hauehave broken the pure inſtitution of Chriſt, and brought in a carnall preſence of his body, (one abſurdity being granted,kAriſt. phyſ. lib. 1. cap. 2. & 3. a thouſand follow) infinite abuſes hauehave enſued vponupon heapes, the flood-gates being ſet open, whereof there is no end or meaſure. Let them therefore repent themſelues of this ſacriledge againſt God, and iniury againſt his people, reſtoring vntounto them the communion vnderunder both kinds, according to the ordinance of Chriſt, & direction of the Apoſtles. And thus much of the generall vſes ariſing from both the ſignes ioyntly conſidered. Now let vsus come to the particular vſes offered vntounto vsus,Partic. vſe 1. in each of the ſignes. And firſt touching the bread. Is bread ſimply conſidered the firſt ſigne in the Lords Supper? Then it is not neceſſarily required, that it be adminiſtred in vnleauened bread. For bread is oftentimes named and repeated: but the word (vnleauened) is neuer added. Wherefore as it is in it ſelfe indifferent whether the wine be red or white, & whatſoeuer the kinde or colour be (if it be wine:) ſo is it not greatly material whether the bread be leauened or vnleuened, ſo it be bread. Which ouerthrowes the error of the church of Rome & her fauorits, who hold itlBeliar. lib. 4. de Eucha cap. 7. neceſſary that the bread vſed in the Sacrament be vnleauened. They pretend rhe inſtitution of Chriſt, who (ſay they) made the Sacrament of vnleauened bread, inſtituting it after he had eaten the Paſſeouer, which was to be eaten with vnleauened bread,mExod. 12, 8.18. according to the law of Moſes, neither was there any leauē to be found in Iſrael ſeauen daies together. Thus they charge vsus to breake the inſtitution of Chriſt. But ſee heere the peeuiſhnes and partiality of theſe proud ſpirits, who flye to the inſtitution, and ſticke preciſely to the circumſtances of it, when it ſerueth any way to their purpoſe: but when the queſtion is of matters of ſubſtance not of circumſtance, as touching communicating vnderunder both kinds, touching the neceſsity of eating and drinking, and of many receiuing together againſt their halfe communions, priuate maſſes, and reſeruations, they cannot abide to be tyed and yoked to the inſtitution. Indeed we deny not, but Chriſt might vſe vnleauened bread at his laſt Supper, hauing immediately before eaten the Paſchal Lambe. This peraduenture is truly coniectured: yet no ſuch thing is expreſſed in the Goſpell, nor preſcribed as a rule neceſſarily to be followed. The Euangeliſts teach, he tooke bread: but make no mention or diſtinction what bread he tooke, nor determine what bread we ſhould take, no more then limit what wine we ſhall vſe, but leaue it at liberty to take leauened bread or vnleauened, as occaſion of time, place, perſons, and other circumſtances ſerue, ſo we take bread; as their ownenGregor. 1. in Regiſtr. Prophets hauehave confeſſed, and their owne CouncelsoConcil. Florent. ſeſſ. vlt. hauehave concluded. Wherefore, to conſecrate in vnleauened bread, is not of the ſubſtance of the Supper, no more then to eate it at night or after Supper, as Chriſt adminiſtred and the Apoſtles firſt receiued it. For if any would bring in a neceſsity of that time, as well as of that bread which Chriſt vſed, wee ſee as faire a warrant for the one as for the other: nay we hauehave a more certaine direction for the time which is expreſſed, then for the kinde of bread which is not defined. Beſides, if Chriſt on this occaſion vſed vnleauened bread: it was becauſe it was vſuall, common, and ordinary bread at that time, as we alſo ſhold vſe that bread which is vſuall and common. So the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of that bread which was daily vſed among the Gentiles, ſaying,p1 Cor. 10, 16 The bread which we breake: he addeth, neither leauened nor vnleauened, but vnderſtandeth that in common and continuall vſe. Thus then we conclude, it is no breach of Chriſts ordinance, nor a tranſgreſsion of the firſt originall inſtitution of the Lords Supper, to eate eyther the one or the other.

Partic. vſe 2.Againe, touching the other ſigne, which is the wine, the Church of Rome may iuſtly be charged with tranſgreſsing the ordinance of Chriſt, who by her ſole authority would tye vsus to mingle water with wine forrRhem. Teſt. fol. 452. nu. 23. great myſtery and ſignification, eſpecially, for that water guſhed with blood, out of our Lords ſide. So they condemne all thoſe Churches as doing impudently and damnably, that do not mixe water with wine in the Sacrament, and ſay it cannot bee omitted without great ſinne. True it is, the Church in former times, where the wine prouided for the Lords Table, was of it ſelfe heady, ſtrong, hot, fiery, and fuming, was wont to allay it with water, that it might be milde & temperate: leaſt that which was taken to helpe and further the ſoule, ſhould diſquiet and diſtemper the body. This began for conueniency, not for neceſsity: for fitneſſe, not for ſignification: for ſobriety, not for any myſtery. But the water is no part of Chriſts inſtitution, neither can it bee proued, that Chriſt or his Apoſtles vſed water with their wine, or commanded others to mingle wine and water in this myſtery, or that Chriſts Apoſtles euer receiued it as a matter of faith, or taught it to be a neceſſary part of this Sacramēt. For Alexander the 5. Byſhop of Rome, was the firſt thatſBarth. Caranza ſum. Concil. Florent p. 458. mingled water with wine at conſecration, & ordained that the oblation ſhould be of vnleauenedtPolid. Virg. de inuentor. Rerum lib. 5. cap. 9. bread, and not of leauened, as till that time had beene vſed. Wherefore, let vsus retaine and maintaine the plaine and ſimple inſtitution of Chriſt, who in his laſt Supper gaue wine, not water to be drunke, for he calleth it the fruiteuMat. 26, 29. of the vine, which is wine and not water.

Againe, they may be preſſed and hampered with their owne dreames and deuices. For whereas they hold that the wine muſt be mingled with water, & that the elements after the words of conſecration are tranſubſtantiated, and remaine in their owne nature no more: I would aske this queſtion of theſe Watermen, rowing in the troubled ſea of their owne decrees (who are neere of kinaPapiſts are neere of kin to the old hereticks called Aquarij. to the old hereticks called Aquarij) whether the water mixed with the wine be turned into blood? If they ſay it is not, then they deny tranſubſtantiation of all that is within the cup, and ſo ſhake the vertue of their conſecration in pieces: if they ſay it is, then will they make Chriſt a watery body and elemē tall: beſides, it cannot be by vertue of Chriſts inſtitution, where water is neither expreſſed nor included. So then, their beſt defence is to anſwere with the Phariſies, bMat. 21.23.We cannot tell. To conclude, let vsus not ſeeke to be wiſer thē Chriſt, nor to mingle together more myſteries then we hauehave learned of him, as Paul ſaith of his owne practiſe,c1 Cor. 11, 23 That which I receiued of the Lord, I hauehave deliuered vntounto you. Neither Prophet, nor Apoſtle, nor Angel from heauen is to teach otherwiſe then Chriſt himſelfe hath taught, as he charged his diſciples, Teach them to obſerue all things whatſoeuer I hauehave commanded you. He hath ſupreame authority in the Church, his doctrine alone ſhould be heard, as the Father himſelfe witneſſeth from heauen,dMat. 17, 5. This is my beloued Son, in whom I hauehave delight, heare h m. We are not to regard what other before vsus hauehave thought meete to do, but what Chriſt did, who is before all other, and called himſelfe the truth,eCyprian epiſt. and not cuſtome. Thus much of the third outward part of the Lords Supper, to wit, the two ſignes of bread and wine.

The New Covenant, Book 3 · Chapter 5

p. 345CHAP. V. Of the third outward part of the Lords Supper.

CHAP. V. Of the third outward part of the Lords Supper.