Two very learned Sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the sacrament of the lords Supper:  
Whereunto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper, wherein is briefly and soundly discussed the principal points in controversy, concerning that question. By T. W.  2. CORINTH. 13.5. Prove yourselves whether ye are in the faith: Examine yourselves. Know ye not your own selves, how that jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? 
AT LONDON Printed by Robert Walde-graue, for T. Man, and T. Gubbins. Anno. 1588.   

TO THE RIGHT honourable and very virtuous lady, Brigit, countess of Bedford: and to the right worshipful and his very good friends, sir CHARLES MORISINES knight, and the lady DOROTHY MORISINES his wife, T. W. wisheth together with all outward abundance of worldly blessings the continual comfort of a good conscience here, and the eternal salvation of their souls at the last through Christ.  
THe consideration of the christian favours, which you (right honourable, right worshipful, & my very dear friends) have carried towards me, and the memory of some benefits that I have received from you, hath sundry times so affected my heart, that I could not, but in the good remembrance thereof, in some measure of unfeinednesse, as in respect of God, praise his holy name for those his mercies, and as in regard of you, with earnestness pray unto him, for your prosperous estates, and that in the best things especially, and as in consideration of myself, think upon some good mean, whereby I might at the least show myself, in some sort mindful of, and thankful for the same. Whatsoever I writ in this behalf, I utter it (I humbly thank God for it) not vain gloriously to boast, before God or men, in any thing I have done, for I know & feel in myself, that (over and beside my gross & grievous iniquities) even in the best services that ever I performed in piety towards God, or in charity towards his people, there was by reason of mine own corruption, and the imperfections that through the same did cleave thereunto, matter sufficient enough, in truth to abase and to humble me indeed: neither yet as cunningly to crave daily and new kindnesses (a vice too common in this corrupt age) the Lord having been pleased in that behalf, to bestow upon me more simplicity, than by fawning flattery to fetch from my friends, any thing that might satisfy large affections, or relieve present want. But to these ends I protest, and that in singleness of heart, have I declared the same, namely that all my christian acquaintance, and amongst others your honour and worships especially might be assured, that the good you have done me, though at the first it might seem to be cast away, in as much as present testification of my grateful mind were not then priest and ready, hath not yet utterly been lost, because now at the length God hath enabled me by some small means to declare the contrary: and again, that I myself feeling myself now and then, by God's grace I doubt not (for as I know, so I freely confess, that in my flesh, that is to say, in myself, dwelleth nothing that is good) stirred up to such holy duties, might receive, not in the things as performed by myself, but as they are graces of God, flowing from his goodness, and wrought by his word and spirit, both some comfort in the days of my great grief and heaviness of heart, and some encouragement to goodness also, when mine own dullness and backwardness to the same, not only ariseth up in me, but standeth against it, as with force and might, to stop and hinder me therein. In regard whereof also, I do at this time humbly offer and present unto you (right honourable & right worshipful) together, first a sound discourse or two, which that learned man M. Beza wrote, and I long ago translated, and withal a short sum, that I myself penned heretofore, and have enlarged again all of them touching that great question of the Lords supper. For that worthy man's worthy works, I dare protest and aver, that if the excellency, either of the man, or matter, or manner, may purchase a fruitful commendation, and procure favourable acceptation (with them that fear God I mean, & love his truth sincerely) it shall not want either the one or the other. For as concerning the writer himself, he is one of the wonders & worthies of the world at this day, a man of rare parts every manner of way (whatsoever some, either of ignorance in themselves, or pride of themselves, bark out against him to the contrary) whether we respect sound knowledge and judgement, in the tongues and truth of God, or faithful pains, and fruitful travels in his ministery and place. And as for the work, it concerneth a great ground of our christian faith, and the same controverted, not only between the superstitious papists and us, in the question of transubstantiation, but with such also as in the common profession of God's holy word and religion, we charitably take for our brethren, though otherwise in this point, overshot as we say, & overseen also. The manner of handling is deep & profound, and not shallow or mean, after the manner and dealing of other men, there being for the more full explication of the question, deducted and laid out, sundry of the fundamental points and principles of our christian faith, and namely touching the several and distinct natures of God and man, and the personal union of them in our saviour Christ. But for mine own I mind not to say much, specially as in commendation thereof. That which I think, I will plainly express, and protest also, namely that as nothing of mine, is in any respect meet, to behold the light of this learned age, both by reason of mine own wants & insufficiency, and also by means of the great ripeness of knowledge and judgement, that God hath shed abroad into the hearts of many men: so I confess myself & my writings, much more unworthy, either the same day to be named with that worthy man of the world, or any manner of way to be joined with his. And yet if the church approve that which I do, and the godly receive some profit by it to spiritual edification, I shall much rejoice therein, not as in respect of that I have done (for I acknowledge myself to have nothing save that which I have received) but as in regard of the good effects, that it hath through God's almighty and secret blessing, brought forth in the hearts of them, that have been or shallbe acquainted therewith: in which treatise, I have specially laboured two things. First in the days of so great blindness and ignorance, amongst the multitude and common sort of people, as now prevaileth, to instruct the simple as much as I could in the sound knowledge of these most holy mysteries, that so neither with the idle and unskilful conceits of their own heads, nor with the superstitious and erroneous opinions of other men concerning the same, cast abroad into the world as baits to catch them, they might be deceived, and carried away into untruth, as if it were with a violent tempest & whirlwind. And secondly, that in the midst of so great and general carelessness, of fitting and preparing men for such worthy graces, as be exhibited and offered there (howsoever a common corruption that way, hath almost carried all away) I might at the least, by reaching them my weak hand and feeble arm, if not altogether pull some out of that puddle, and so bring them to more comfortable and sanctified use of these pledges of God's grace, and their faith in the same, yet let them behold my love and sound affection for the effecting thereof to my uttermost. How I have pursued these points, and attained that I aimed at, let the godly judge, to whose good censures, I do willingly submit myself, & all things that shall come from me praying charitable construction in that I have done, and brotherly admonition if any thing I have failed. How it shall prevail, either with many or any I know not: the gracious issue and blessing thereof I leave to the Lord, who if our sins hinder not, standing between him & us, as a huge and high wall, can and will no doubt make it effectual in the minds of many, to their spiritual good. But if your honour (good madame) and you (right worshipful and my very good friends) together with them that depend upon you, and belong unto you, may reap christian instruction, and holy comfort thereby, and having faith & a good conscience in all things, may by this and other holy means graciously grow, and mightily continue, with the increaces of God, even unto the fruition of eternal life at the last through Christ, I shall have that, which I greatly wish & desire, and shall think my poor pains well satisfied & answered, in the good that shall light upon them, whom I do (as duty also requireth) unfeignedly both reverence and love in jesus Christ. Thus humbly praying pardon of my boldness for this dedication, and earnestly craving acceptation of my simple travels, according to that accustomed courtesy that you are wont to show to them, that come to shroud themselves under you, I do in the most dutiful manner that I may or can for this present time end. At London the sixth of this February: 1587.  
Your honours and worships always dutiful and bounden in Christ jesus T.W. the lords unworthy servant.   

THE FIRST HOMILY, made the seventh day of April, in the year 1574.  
I Being about to speak of the Lords supper, will begin with the words of our saviour out of the seventeenth chapter of the gospel after john. 
john. 17.3.  This is (saith the Lord jesus) life everlasting, that they know thee to be the only true & very God, 
Two things principally to be observed in the text.  and him whom thou hast sent jesus Christ. Out of these words therefore we understand or gather two things: The first is, that our salvation hangeth upon the certain knowledge of the true and very God, who is also the one and only God. The other is, that this knowledge was for our salvation at the last made manifest unto us, in the person of his son, 
The knowledge of God without Christ, is nothing to salvation.  so that he that perceiveth somewhat of God, or knoweth him without Christ, perceiveth or knoweth nothing at all to salvation. Whereupon also this necessarily followeth, that if we once perceive the person & office of Christ (for these two things must be joined together) we do withal understand the true and only way of eternal life.  
And forasmuch as the controversy touching the Lord's supper must be directed to this end or mark, this must also be confessed, that the controversies sprung up & arisen touching these points cannot be taken away or ended, neither can we understand or perceive what we should truly & rightly determine concerning the lords supper, except we begin with these things, which must needs be known, touching jesus Christ. Therefore before we come to entreat of the matter itself, that is to say, of the supper of the Lord, we will show what we ought by the word of GOD to believe concerning Christ. 
Sound knowledge of Christ's person and offices, will overthrow many heresies.  certainly the thing itself will declare, that that foundation or groundwork being once laid, it will come to pass, that many errors will of their own accord, without any other help, fall down together and vanish away: for it is certain and manifest, that many questions tossed to & fro, and handled touching this point, have sprung from hence, 
Ignorance and hypocrisy, two great means to maintain error.  because that some, which do so stiffly defend this their opinions, either have not understood, or else dissembled, what we ought to judge and believe touching Christ. Wherefore some points being first put down, we will afterwards by this rule examine diverse, yea, repugnant & contrary opinions touching the Lord's supper, and will affirm such as are agreeable to these steadfast and unmovable principles, to be true, and such others as shall serve from them, to be false.  
In Christ we have, I say, 
Two things chiefly to be considered in Christ.  specially to consider two things: his person, and his office. By the word person we understand or mean Christ himself. 
His person: of which he speaketh in this homily.  And his office we call that duty or charge which the father laid upon him, to save us, which thing he himself did most perfectly and plentifully perform. 
His office: of which he speaketh in the next homily.  Now in the first place we must speak of Christ's person, which we must of necessity determine to be such a one, that he was fully and throughlie able to endure and fulfil that duty: for unless it be certain that Christ was such a one, as was able to accomplish all things necessary, meet and appertaining to his charge, we shall in vain reason or dispute concerning his office. 
In Christ's person two things.  In Christ therefore there are to be considered these two things, to wit, the natures whereof he consisteth, 
The whole person itself.  and the very person itself, compacted as a man would say, 

The two natures whereof it consisteth.  
First he showeth what we must understand by natures in Christ.   of these natures. By the natures we understand not natural power as when we say, this is the nature of a man, of a beast, of a plant, of this or that thing, neither formal power (for so they should be two persons, of which Christ should consist) but these two substances whereof Christ's person consisteth, & is as it were compacted. 
A similitude.  As for example, if we say that man is made of two natures, the one spiritual, which is the nature of the soul, the other bodily, which is the nature of the body: 

Eutyches affirmed, that Christ had but one nature, that is to say, divine or of God, like as he was but one person. He was about the year 450, as some think. His error was condemned in the Ephesine council.  
Nestorius' deemed our saviour to be God. He was as some suppose, about the year 419.   so we also say and affirm, that Christ consisteth of two natures, of which one is the Godhead, and the other is the manhood.  
By the way I will speak this thing, that we are constrained to use new speeches, that we may avoid new errors, or else old ones new polished and trimmed, with which many men at this day do entangle & snare themselves: for, as in proper place hereafter we will show, there have risen & sprung up within our remembrance certain men, who renewing partly the error of Eutyches, & partly of Nestorius, have in stead of the word Godhead, brought in divinity, and therefore we are enforced to distinguish Godhead from divinity. And verily Paul spoke not rashly where he saith that the fullness of the godhead dwelleth in Christ, where he useth also, 
Colloss. 2.9.  not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is divinity, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is deity or Godhead: 
The Grecians do in their terms more fitly express religion than the Latinists.  for the Grecians, I know not by what mean, do much better and more effectually express these things than the Latins do, as also in this argument, or matter, I would more gladly & willingly for plainness sake say and use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is hominitas, if it be lawful to speak so in Latin, or as you would say, man's nature, or the very state and condition of man's nature, rather than humanity or manhood,  
Then we perceive & understand, that in Christ's person, there are two substances, to wit, the Godhead and the manhood, 
Athanasius.  as we say. So speaketh Athanasius in that famous confession of his, saying that he was consubstantial, that is, of the self same substance with the father, and as he himself expoundeth it, God of the substance of the father, and man of the substance of his mother, that is, of the same substance that we are. Afterwards the church used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Synodus Chalcedonensis.  that is nature. We confess, saith the Chalcedon synod, that the son consisteth of two natures. Neither in deed was the term nature unadvisedly used, or rashly taken up, albeit it if we would narrowly consider the property of the word, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is nature, doth not agree to the divinity, for it is derived or cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 
The reasons moving the fathers to use the word, Nature.  to be borne or sprung up, which agreeth well to a thing created, but not to God himself, the creator. Wherefore this seemeth to be the reason, which led and moved the fathers to use this word, because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches, by whom not only the very natures themselves, but also the proprieties of the natures were confounded and shuffled together. Now because Eutyches did maintain and defend both these errors, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth beside the substance comprehend and set out the proprieties also, by which proprieties, that nature is defined, and made to differ from others, therefore it seemeth that the fathers used the word nature. In sum, let us resolve upon this, and set it down as an undoubted truth, that when we say, Christ consisteth of two natures, we mean his deity and humanity, that is his Godhead, and man's nature.  
Let us now come to the word Person. 
Touching the term person.  The later writers have called that person, which the former called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin writers have retained and kept in use this word person. Now amongst divines, and in their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is person, are distinguished after this sort: 
Substance and person distinguished.  under the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plural number, are meant the persons which are in the common essence or being, having the propriety joined thereunto, whereby one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person is separated or distinguished from the other, and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is substance, God or the Godhead itself is signified and meant, but the Father, the son, and the Holy spirit, are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is persons. Neither was it rashly or unadvisedly done, that the church hath used the name of person, 
Boetius.  which Boêtius hath defined thus, saying that it is the communicate property of a reasonable substance, because many did through very great error, freely & indifferently use these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is person, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for one and the self same thing. So the Latin writers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or person, used and said substance, even as the logicians are wont so to call it: wherefore that this doubtfulness might be avoided, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be used.  
Now let us speak more plainly what we call person, or mean by that name, when we entreat of Christ, whether that, which is as it were compounded, of the Godhead taking, and of the flesh taken, so that, if it might be lawful for us to divide Christ into his parts, one part of his person should be his Godhead, and the other part his manhood? 
Christ's manhood cannot properly be called a person, and the cause thereof.  Not so at any hand, for Christ is not said or called a person properly in respect of his humanity or manhood, but of his divine nature only, and yet that not to be separated from his manhood. This is the cause or reason thereof: If Christ's human nature had been, before it was taken of the divine nature: that is to say, of the word, there should then be an unton of two persons, and not of two natures, and therefore Christ should be a person compact of two persons, whereupon would ensue many absurd, unprofitable, yea altogether wicked & ungodly matters, whereof now there is neither time nor place to speak. Therefore thus it must be determined, that the divine nature took on it the human nature, forming and fashioning it: and even whiles it was form and fashioned, to have taken it unto itself, that is to say, that Christ's human nature was never extant, or had being, but in the Godhead: wherefore the human nature in Christ, 
Christ as he is God, is a person, & his godhead is a nature, as also his manhood.  is not a person, but the humanity subsisteth, and hath his being in this person of the word, and therefore Christ is not either in imagination or in deed, a double person, but one person consisting of two natures. For the word is both a nature & a person, but the manhood is not of itself, any other thing than a nature, which (as they speak in the schools) is become a person, 
There is but one son of God, as there is but one Christ.  and is upholden in the godhead taking it unto itself, so that now there are not two sons, to wit, one eternal and natural, or of the substance and being of the father, and another created and adopted, but that only eternal son of GOD, sustaining and upholding the nature united to himself, so that also there are not two Christ's, but one only, God and man together, from the time that he knit or united to himself the nature which he took. Now we learn what we may call the person of Christ, 
What the person of Christ is.  to wit, the son of God manifested in the flesh.  
Let us come now to the word union: for uniting is that whereby these two natures, to wit, the godhead or the person of the word, and the humanity or manhood are coupled together. The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
What union or uniting is.  that is, the coupling or joining together of two things or more, in such sort, that of those many things coming together, some one certain thing is compounded or made. 
There are divers sorts of uniting.  And there are divers kinds of unitings: for sometimes nature is united with the form or shape: sometime an accident with the subject: & sometime parts are united and knit unto parts, to establish or make a whole matter. 
Uniting, and union, or unity differ much.  Wherefore uniting is one thing, and unity or oneness (as a man might say) is an other thing. For one or oneness is not a number, neither doth it necessarily presuppose a number● except in things compounded, but is the beginning of a number. Therefore we hold, that there is in christ, a unity or oneness indeed of the person, and an uniting of the natures.  
These words are diligently to be marked, & so much the more, because the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions & troubles in these disputations & matters. Certainly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, uniting, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, unity, or oneness, are altogether divers matters. For in the mystery of the Trinity, there is unity or oneness of the essence, and a Trinity in the persons. Again, on the other side, there is in Christ an uniting of the natures, and an unity or oneness of the person. Wherefore the Fathers said well, that in the divinity, there is not an other thing, and an other thing, that is to say, 
In the godhead there is but one simple being.  two things (for in the divinity there is but one only and most simple essence or being) but an other and an other meaning persons. For the Father is one, an other is the Son, and the holyghost is an other. The reason is, because when we say another, we mean the person: when we say an other thing, we mean the nature. Wherefore there is not an other thing in the divinity, for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods. In Christ on the other side, there is an other thing, 
In Christ there is two natures, but not two persons.  and an other thing (because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood) and not an other, and an other, because Christ is but one subsistence or being, consisting not of two persons, but of man's nature being taken, which hath his subsisting and being in the divine nature.  
Let us now come to a more full and large declaration of the word union, or uniting. This kind and manner of union or uniting, 
Errors cannot be well confunted, till the personal union be well known.  is called personal: upon the true definition of which personal union dependeth the confutation of most great errors, wherewith too many at this present are sick and infected, as we shall well perceive, when we shall come to the matter itself: wherefore we must describe the personal union out of the very word of God. 
Isaiah. 7.14. Matth. 1.23.  First Isaiah saith, that this our saviour is immanuel, that is, God with us. 
john. 1.14.  john expounding the fulfilling of this prophecy, saith, that the word became, or was made flesh. Now because a thing may be said to be made many ways, that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle, in the epistle to the Hebrews, 
Hebr. 2. 1●.  when he saith, that the son took the seed of Abraham. Therefore the word taking, openeth and declareth this saying of john: And the word was made flesh, and both these laid together do also declare, how Christ is God with us: and all these things laid or joined together do show and determine what the personal union is. They which have not interpreted that place of john, 
Three errors by misinterpreting the words of john.  out of the place in the epistle to the hebrews, have fallen into diverse errors: for some have expounded it thus, the word was made flesh, because the word was in stead of the soul unto the body taken, that is to say, that as the soul joined with the body shapeth or fashioneth the man: so the person of the son took unto it that body, that by that means he might become Christ. So that they deprived Christ of a human soul, & in the stead thereof did substitute the Godhead. 
Apollinaris taught that the son of God took only the body of a man, and not a reasonable soul. Tripartit. hist. lib. 5. cap. 44. & lib. 9 cap. 3. Basil. epist. 74. August. lib. & Higher lib. 9 He was about the year 380.  But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinite plain testimonies of scripture refuted, this also necessarily followeth, that except the word had taken the soul unto it, likewise our souls should of necessity be lost, because that only shall be saved which Christ restored in his own person, neither could Christ properly have suffered (that I may let slip many other most absurd points) seeing that the soul properly is troubled and afflicted. Others have framed and devised for true flesh, a ghost or fantasy, and to that purpose have wrested and writhe the word similitude or likeness, 
Roman. 8.3.  in these words of Paul, God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh, &c: whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
They had a double name, Docitae, or Docetae, and sprung indeed (as some suppose) from Simon Magus, who held, that Christ came not in the flesh, but that he was Christ. They held as the Marcionites did, that Christ suffered in a fantasy or ghost: See homil. 2. following.  If these men's opinions were true, christ should not be in very deed jesus, or a Saviour, as indeed one that had not been born or had suffered for us. There are othersome, who forsaking these errors, do notwithstanding fall into others, no less absurd and detestable, because (as the Poet saith) while fools avoid some vices or faults, they ru● into others. 
Nestorius, whose heresy what it was is opened before.  For Nestorius interpreted these words, the word became flesh after this manner, that is to say, the godhead of the Son of God did most plentifully and fully power forth, the power and force thereof into that flesh which it took. 
The absurdity of the former interpretation.  Which interpretation if it be true, Christ is not God, but divine, or as you would say, godlike or heavenly, and though he be the most excellent amongst saints and holy ones, yet he is not to be worshipped, neither to be accounted as a Saviour.  
Whereas notwithstanding Paul attributeth unto Christ, 
Coloss. 2. ●.  not the fullness of the divinity, but the fullness of the deity or godhead, and to be both GOD and man (which is a proper title to our saviour Christ) is far different from this, to be one that beareth or carrieth God. So that Nestorius maketh Christ God, not by the union of the very hypostasis or person of the word, but accounts him as most divine, only by the presence, coming, & force, or by the effusion or spreading abroad of gifts: and beside that, losing, or destroying Christ's person, he maketh him a mere or only man, he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood: whereas on the other side, the flesh taken is sustained and upholden, in, and by, the godhead taking it. 
Eutyches heresy confuted.   
Eutyches falling into the contrary error thought that by these words, 
Three most gross errors flowing from Eutyches his heresy.  the word was made or became flesh, this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh, and for the uniting of the natures, he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead, that is to say, darkness for light: in which matter he was most foully deceived, for beside that the Godhead is unchangeable, it would follow, if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth, that the word ceased to be God, so soon as it was made or became flesh, because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was: as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod, 
Exod. 4.2.  and began to be a serpent, 
Aristotle.  even as Aristotle teacheth, that by the depriving or taking away of one form, another is brought in. But if the abolishing or taking away be denied, that a mingling a mixture may be established, whether it be of the natures themselves, it is of the Godhead and the manhood, or of the properties of either nature, then will ensue that, which is more absurd than the former, to wit, that Christ is neither God nor man, but a certain third thing compacted of both, as the drink called Mulsum, made of wine and honey sodden together, is neither wine nor honey alone, but a certain matter compounded or made of them both: and what can be imagined more wonderful and monstrous than these errors? 
The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundry errors.  But all these errors, are both most shortly and also most soundly confuted, if the word of assuming or taking, be rightly expounded: that is, by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture. Wherefore declare at the length will some say, 
The personal union what it is.  what is the hypostatical or personal union in Christ? It is the taking of man's nature, which is sustained or upholden of the divine nature, that is to say, such a taking or uniting, that there proceedeth or cometh out of that uniting, but one subsistence or being only, in which subsistence, that divine nature, that is to say, the person of the word beareth sway, or ruleth. I repeat this again: The hypostatical or personal union is that, from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person: for the more plain manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers have used the similitude of the body and the soul, 
Athanasius.  Athanasius, who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth, being chief the author thereof. 
A similitude.  Wherefore as a certain soul, being joined to a certain body, maketh one certain person, as Peter, Paul, john. So that eternal word of the Father, took unto it that flesh of the virgin, that is to say, made the same so proper unto itself, that from hence cometh and proceedeth that person, which is called Christ. It appeareth plainly unto us, out of the words of Christ in the tenth chapter of the gospel according to john, 
john. 10.18.  that we must needs consider this mystery or sectet after this sort. Christ there saith, I have power to lay down my soul or life, and to take it again. For necessary is it that Christ should so speak, either secretly in respect of his body, 
The place of john 10. expounded: which cannot be understood either of the  or in respect of his soul, or else in respect of his body and soul together, or else distinctly and plainly in respect of his godhead. Christ could not so say in respect of the body considered by itself, 
Body alone  because the body is not said to lay down a soul or to take it again, because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrument that which is rather subject to the soul. 
or Soul alon●  But is it in respect of the soul itself considered by itself? No indeed: for then Christ should rather have said: I have power to lay down myself a soul, and to take up again myself a soul. Verily in the resurrection, the soul is not taken up again, but the body: therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ, either in respect of his body only, or in respect of his soul only: 
or of them both together,  What then is it in respect of them both together? No, rather necessary is it that we refer it to some third thing, which may be said to lay down, and to take up his soul. Wherefore Christ so spoke according to his deity: and when he saith, 
but of the godhead.  that he hath power to lay down his life, and to take it again, he doth again open that mystery or secret which we handle. For the very natures indeed so joined together, are in such sort set out, that not two things, but one alone is established, and that without confusion, yet so that the one nature beareth rule. And it is meet to be marked that Christ saith: I have power to lay down, not every soul, but mine own. Wherefore this cannot so be taken, nor referred to this end, that God should be the lord of all being things, but he showeth, that that soul of his which he would lay down & take again, was otherwise his soul, than other men's souls are theirs. How then is it Christ's soul will some men say? Verily by personal union. The scripture saith that God dwelleth in us, 
john. 4.12.  and yet we believe and confess, that he dwelleth not in his saints, by his union or uniting: 
1. Corinth. 6.19.  For our bodies are so the temples of the holy ghost, that yet they make not one subsistence or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is severally & by himself a certain thing, & so likewise the holy ghost, to wit, god eternal. So a wicked spirit, and some one possessed with the same wicked spirit, are joined together, & yet the unclean spirit is not in man, as the soul is in the body. For the wicked spirit remaineth by itself, a certain thing much like as the guest is in his inn: and again, the possessed with the wicked spirit, is so become the inn or lodging place of the wicked spirit, that yet the guest is another from him. As for us we affirm, the person of the word, or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken unto him, that he hath united himself thereto by a personal union: so I say, that the nature taken or assumed, being sustained and upheld in the nature taking or assuming, maketh yet notwithstanding but one person, which is the eternal word of God. Hereupon it followeth that there are not two sons of God, much less two Christ's, one, the son of Marry, the other, the son of God, 
Matth. 1.21.23  but one Immanuel and saviour only. And this is the very true description of the personal union, as will yet much more plainly appear, if we compare with this truth touching the personal union: 
Sundry sorts of errors.  the descriptions that are partly felt from the old heresies, and partly anew devised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies. First, there are some that fear not openly to say, that the habitation or dwelling of God in Christ, is not otherwise to be considered in Christ, or that he doth no otherwise dwell in him, than in other men, yea than in other creatures. 
jacobus Andrea's assertion, and the same confuted.  jacobus Andreas in those his Thesis or propositions, by which he blowed to the field, or bade the battle, wrote the same even in so many words, as you would say, to wit, that the habitation or dwelling of the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creatures whatsoever, as in respect of his essential habitation or dwelling, for God is every where. If a man demand what shall be the difference of the personal union: this shall be their answer, that it consisteth herein, that into all other things the godhead hath powered forth some properties or qualities, but into Christ's humanity or manhood he hath powered all properties. A wonderful thing, that after that these opinions have now a long while since been tossed, and by the solemn and most just judgements of Christ's church, condemned and confounded by so many darts, as have come from heaven itself, against the authors and fautors of these ungodly blasphemies, a marvelous thing, I say, that there should now spring up some, as dare be bold, both by word and writing, to maintain and defend the same, and that with so great rejoicing and commendation of most unskilful men: for who is he unless he be altogether blind, that seethe not, that if the word be no other wise present in christ, than in many things, (that is to say, beingly, presently, powerfully as in schools they were wont to say) that then Christ's person is destroyed, 
His heresy is declared before.  as Nestorius taught? And that if we grant an effusion or pouring forth of all the proprieties of the godhead into the flesh assumed or taken, that then the other part of the ungodly assertion of Eutyches, 
Concerning him and his heresy, see before.  shall be erceted and set up? A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such divers matters, to wit, the separating of the natures on the one side, & the effusion or pouring forth of the properties of the one nature into the other, on the other side, & first in our memory & time most impudently fried, and most unskilfully by our ubiquitaries defended.  
But let us, I pray you, somewhat more narrowly look into the matter, that we may see what it meaneth. This I say; that if the personal union be to be defined and determined by the effusion or pouring forth of all properties, that then this, 
He overthroweth the error by absurdities insuming upon it. The first absurdity.  which of all things is most false & ungodly will follow thereupon, to wit, that God is in some sort personally united unto all things created. Why so? Because the effusion or pouring forth of all, & some properties alone, do not differ genere, as they say, that is, in the general or common kind, but according to more or less only: wherefore either Christ was not otherwise God than any other thing, though perhaps he were somewhat more perfect than other things, or else other things were divine and godlike, but Christ's flesh most divine and godlike. 
The second absurdity.  Again, if the definition of the personal union were true, it would follow thereupon, that the three persons were united, to that flesh that was assumed or taken, for the essential propriety of the very godhead itself, are common to the three persons in one & the self-same essence or being: therefore to be infinite, almighty, knowing all things, present every where &c: (as they themselves now speak) be not proprieties, either of the father or of the son, or of the holy ghost, but only of that alone, and altogether singular godhead. Whereupon it followeth, that if we grant that definition of the personal union, that then the 3 persons of the godhead were incarnate, 
They were so called, because they affirmed that God the father suffered. Isiodor. Orig. libr. 8. The third absurdity.  & took flesh upon them, and so we shall proceed further than the patropassian heretics. Moreover, by this means the godhead itself should be spoiled of his most essential proprieties, even this I say which are most proper thereto, or which do belong unto the same, after the fourth manner or sort, as the logicians speak, that is to say, do belong unto the whole Godhead alone unto the Godhead, and always unto the same: for verily, if they be in deed communicated unto the nature of man that was assured or taken, than I say they do now cease to be proper to the Godhead, unless we mind to make these terms, proper & common, all one. But the Lord speaketh otherwise in the prophet saying: I will not give my glory unto another. 
Isaiah. 48.11. The fourth absurdity.  What more? Him whom these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion, had made of him that was God & man together in one person, but one that carried or bare God, these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion & conceit, transform him I say and his flesh (having in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powered into the same) into the Godhead itself. But now, if there nothing happen to God, or there be no accident in him, as indeed there is not, for whatsoever is in him, is substance and not accidents, as they speak in schools, How were the properties (by which he is distinguished from things created) indeed powered forth into the flesh assumed and taken, but that also man's nature should be changed into a certain Godhead that is made or created? 
He procureth an objection.  But if these men will deny (as sometimes I see them by the power of truth itself constrained to deny) that the monstrous presence every where (for whose cause only (whatsoever they feign) they propound unto us that monster of ubiquity, to be esteemed and reverenced) doth not cleave unto Christ's flesh as to his proper subject, or that it is not accidents, but only as accidents, than I say, who seethe not what monstrous things these are, to ascribe unto the flesh a real presence every where in itself, though not of itself, the subject whereof should yet notwithstanding, not be the flesh itself, but the Godhead, which Godhead for all that, should no otherwise be present to the flesh, than to all other things whatsoever? And whereof will these men be ashamed, who are so far off from being ashamed of these matters, that yet they dare object this against us, that we exact points of divinity and religion to be handled according to the rules of philosophy? 
The fift absurdity.  certainly, if so be it that the personal union must be defined and determined, not by the union of the very person of the word, with flesh assumed or taken, into one and the self same subsistence or being, yet without any real union, either of the natures themselves or of the essential properties wherewith they are endued, but by the universal effusion or pouring forth of powerful graces from the nature assuming or taking, into the nature assumed or taken (which monstrous opinion fet from the filthy & stinking puddles, both of Nestorius & Eutyches also, and twice sod Brentius, Suindelinus, Illyrichus, and these other goodly fellows do propound and deliver unto the churches of Christ) I say that whether they will yea or no, this must needs follow upon it, that Christ is neither God nor man, much less GOD and man together, 
Chimaera is a monster having three heads, one like a lion, another like a goat, & the third like a dragon.  but a certain Chimaera or monster made of most gross confusion and discord. Yea, and what meaneth this, that they themselves are of necessity constrained to except some things, after that they have affirmed that all things are powered forth. 
The sixth absurdity.  For these things verily to be without beginning to be of himself etc. Cannot be attributed to a creature, but they may be personally united, and are in deed personally united, because that must be true which Christ, himself saith: 
john. 8.58.  Before Abraham was, I am. And this is true, because that he that after so many ages passed from the beginning of the world was made, or became the son of Mary, 
john. 1.1.  even he I say, is that word which was in the beginning, not so much for his full effusion or pouring forth of powerful graces, as for the bodily union or uniting of the Godhead it himself in the person of the word: wherefore, if we will believe these men, this son of the virgin Marie shall not be eternal, because there was not powered into the flesh assumed or taken, that same being without beginning, whereof he cannot be partaker, even as they themselves confess, who are otherwise large sheders abroad, or rather everters and overthrowers of all properties. They being thus driven from hence, even as it were out of some hold or fortress of their own, at the last they retire hither, or have this starting hole, 
Another objection answered or rather error confuted.  to say forsooth, that the personal union consisteth herein, that the word doth nothing, but with the manhoood and by the manhood, as the soul doth nothing, but with the body or by the body. 
Peripatelians were subtle philosophers of Aristotle's sect & opinion, who had their names of disputing walking.  I will leave this to the Peripatelians to be reasons of, whether it be true, that the soul joined to the body doth nothing of itself, for there are not divers wanting, that do stiffly and stoutly deny the same. But I affirm, that that definition of the personal union, cannot stand. I grant therefore, that from the time the eternal word took flesh unto him, that it did not at any time do any thing without the flesh, the reason is, because this union is perpetual: and yet for all that, it doth not hereupon follow, that whatsoever the word did, he did it by the flesh. Though it be granted, I say, that the word did nothing being separated from the flesh, because that that flesh which it once took it never laid down, yet it followeth not, that whatsoever the word did, it did it by the flesh, which thing may be showed, by most assured and manifest examples. 
The first example.  Christ raised up himself by his own divine power, who also had said of himself: 
john. 10.18.  I have power to lay down my soul or life, and to take it again. Did therefore the Godhead, through the flesh accomplish and perform that work? I suppose no man will say so. 
The second example. john. 1.48. Matth. 9.4.  When Christ beheld Nathaniel absent, did he see him with his bodily eyes? And when without the disclosing of any other man, he saw the thoughts of his adversaries, did he this by any sharpness of man's mind or understanding? No verily. Wherefore he saw all these things as he was God, and not with mind or body, and yet he saw them not without man, because he being God is man also. 
The third example. Matth. 8.13. john. 9.6.7, etc.  When he healed the Centurians servant being absent, did he that as when he healed that blind man being present, putting his hand to him, and making the clay? No in deed. For he wrought this latter, by his hands moved through the flesh, that is to say, using the instrument of flesh assumed or taken, whereas he healed the other by the only power of his Godhead. And yet he was not free from flesh, I confess it. He healed him therefore with the flesh, but not through flesh. Wherefore in this fellow-working together of the Godhead, & the nature assumed or taken, the personal union is not deposed or overthrown, but established rather. Beside though I should grant the antecedent or first proposition, 
He granteth the adversaries that which they speak, and yet they gain nothing by it.  to wit, that the word doth nothing but with and by the manhood, yet that would not follow thereupon that they imagine. For though the artificer or handicrafts man do nothing but by his instrument or tool, 
An apt similitude.  yet for all that the artificer and his tool are not united into one subsistence or being: this is my meaning, that that it doth or worketh, is not therefore united with that, by which he doth or worketh, for the doer, and the instrument of doing are two several and distinct things. So the smith or carpenter is not united with his hammer or mallet. 
john. 1.3. Hebr. 1.1.  The father created all things through the son, as the holy scripture witnesseth. Now because the father created all things through the son, shall it thereupon follow, that the father and the son are personally united together? No verily: For they are, and that in deed distinct persons, Wherefore neither in the effusion or pouring out of powerful graces, nor in the communicating of their powerful working together, can the personal union be well described. Let that rather remain sure, that I have said, to wit, that that union may rightly be called personal, 
Personal union, what it is.  by which it cometh to pass, that one person of two natures (the natures & properties of either nature remaining safe & sound) becometh one subsistence or being: of which two natures one, that is to say, the nature assumed or taken, hath his being in the assuming or taking nature, because if either of them did subsist or had it being of itself, they should be two persons. Moreover, before we take in hand to handle the matter itself, we must also declare, how from this personal union ensueth that which the old writers and fathers were wont to call communicating of the properties: for if both the natures themselves and the properties thereof do remain safe and sound, then there remaineth likewise unto either nature these proper attributes or things ascribed unto them: and therefore it should seem, that it cannot be attributed to one nature, which is proper and peculiar to the other. And yet the scripture so speaketh, as when it saith that God suffered, 
Acts. 20.28.  yea and we ourselves are taught so to speak, in the apostles symbol or creed, when we say: I believe in jesus Christ, the only son of God, who was conceived, borne, suffered, cru●ified, buried, etc. 
Certain rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the communicating of proprieties.  That we may well know and understand this matter, we must earn to distinguish the things attribute to either nature. If we will speak properly and truly, we say that things attributed to either of the natures, must most properly and in deed be attributed to be same. 
The first rule.  And this is the first rule. Wherefore we affirm that Christ, as in respect of his Godhead, is the eternal son of God, is infinite, is every where, is eternal, is the creator of all things, cannot die, is invisible, etc. All which things are truly and properly attributed t● that nature of the son of God which is united to flesh. Now these things are proper to his human nature or manhood, that it had a beginning, that it was conceived by the Holy ghost, that it suffered, and at the last rose again. Now from whence cometh this difference? Verily from this, that the natures remain safe, sound, and unconfounded, lest if in the personal union they were confounded, that which were spoken of one's nature should be attributed to the other. And the second rule is this. 
The second rule  Certain things are attributed to, or spoken of Christ, according to his person and not as in respect of his natures, tha● is to say, such things in deed as respect the person, and are attributed to his a●d person, which cannot yet be spoken severally of either of his natures: as for example, if I say Christ is the mediator: th●t word mediator, neither to the Godhead by itself nor to the manhood by it sel●e, or apart from the Godhead, but to that whole person of Christ, for he is a mediator according to either nature: and ●hese things attributed together to Christ, are personal, that is to say, respect his whole person, which unless we confess we shall fall into the heresy of Nestorius and his partakers. And yet in the mean while this & such like, are so the works of the whole person, 
Leo. One sort of heretics had both these names, because they held that Christ had but one will, & one nature, and not two wills, or two natures answering to his two natures.  that notwithstanding either of the natures doth distinctly bring with it his proper & peculiar work to this common deed of redemption, mediation, etc. as Leo teacheth in that his famous and worthy epistle, which also we must know and believe, lest we should fall into that other heresy of the Monoth●●its or Monophysits. And yet the kno● is not untied, nor the mat●er dispatched. Therefore we are principally to mark yet a certain other manner o● speech touching Christ, which as it is true in respect of the whole person, 
These dark terms are expounded afterwards by the author himself.  denominated either of the concrets: so it cann●t without great impiety be attributed 〈◊〉 either of the natures, considered by themselves, or in the abstract: as for example, when we say, God (to wit, the word 〈◊〉 son) redeemed the church by his blo●d: so we do rightly believe and say, th●t God suffered and died, 
Acts. 20.28.  which that vngod●ie man Nestorius denied. For unless God had been he that suffered for us, his suffering could not have brought salvation unto us. Wherefore we say that God was ●●rne, suffered, dead, and rose again. And again on the other side we say, that the son of man was in heaven, when he spa●e on the earth with Nicodemus. 
john. 3.13.  And ●his we affirm even by this rule following, to wit, 
The third rule.  that whatsoever words or terms, are proper to either of the natures, that is to say, the Godhead or the manhood, they may be changed in the concrete, but not in the abstract. 
Abstract, and what he meaneth thereby.  But some man will say, What is it that you call the abstract? We call the very form itself, being by thought seuere● from the matter, an abstract: as for example, If I do in my mind comprehend, no some just man or other, but some justice or righteousness of a man: which also hath place in other predications. Iustic● therefore or righteousness shall be a c●rteine abstract, that is to say, a thing considered by itself, and not in the subject, or particular party wherein it is. 
Concrete, and what he meaneth thereby.  And ●he concrete shall be the matter or man hi●selfe, as a just man, to wit, he that is ●ndued with that justice or righteousness. S● in Christ, we consider in the abstract t●o natures, the manhood and the Godhead, but in the concrete we comprehend him God & man. Therefore let Godhead and manhood be the abstracts, and God and ●an the concrets. And then I say, that the things attributed to the humanity nay be attributed to God, or spoken of ●im, though they cannot be attributed to the Godhead, or spoken thereof: and on th● other side I affirm, that such things as be proper to the Godhead may be attributed to man, though not to the manhood. Wherefore this proposition is true: This man is God, or this: The eternal word of the father is man: but these are ungodly and blasphemous: the Godhead is the manhood, or the manhood is the Godhead. So we must say and believe God, that is to say, the son was borne of the virgin, suffered, dead, etc. but not the Godhead: for he in deed that is God suffered, but not his Godhead. 
1. Pet. 3 18.  Therefore when Peter saith that Christ suffered, he added in the flesh. So Paul, Rom. 1. 
Rom. 1.4.  He was mightily declared to be the son of God according to the spirit. The cause of this predication or speech in the abstract, is the very personal union itself, to wit, because that that subsistence or being, or that person Christ, is by the figure Synecdoche, 
That is 〈…〉 put for the whole.  so denominated of either of his natures. Wherefore, whether he be called man, he is yet notwithstanding understood to be God, or whether he be called God, he is like wise understood to be man. But when we speak of the natures themselves, to wit, either the manhood or the Godhead, by these abstracted names there is nothing else signified or meant but the several natures in and by themselves. And lest these manner of speeches might seem to any man dark and strange, 
He preventeth an objection.  as though christian religion were contained in certain hidden mysteries and secrets far removed from common use & understanding, whereas rather on the other side, the Holy ghost instructing the church, touching these most dark & hidden matters, hath kept a most gross (as you would say) and common mamer of teaching. 
Theodoretus. Two similitudes to explain the point by.  Theodoret doth rightly and truly tell us, that even the common people are hardly accustomed to speak any otherwise: for if Peter speak, who would not rather say that Peter speaketh, than say that Peter's body or tongue speaketh? and yet notwithstanding, neither doth Peter's mind, nor his foot nor any other member speak, but his tongue or mouth.  
But because these things have even personally grown up (as it were) together, and are come into one subsistence or being, that is truly in the concrete attributed to, and spoken of the whole, which if it were uttered of the parts of the whole considered severally, and by themselves, should be falsely spoken. What more? By reason of this personal union, though now it be dissolved through death, Peter shallbe said to have died and sat at Rome, whose soul yet notwithstanding, neither ●s dead, neither any where placed upon ●he earth. So when I say, the eternal ●onne of God died, I consider and mean him as he is whole Christ, although I denominate him after one of his natures, to wit, his mortal or human nature. So again I say: This man forgiveth sins, and yet not as he is man of himself (for it belongeth only to God to forgive sins) but because he is God and man in one person together. 
Mark. 2.7.   
And this is the manner of speaking which the ancient divines have called the communicating of proprieties, 
Communicating of proprieties, and what it is.  which some do not rightly distinguish from making common, and other some disputing whether it be real yea or no, have bewrayed most gross ignorance. And this may easily be decided and determined by the unmovable foundations abovesaid, if we have not a contentious spirit, whereunto if we should not yield, doubtless the old sophisters and natural philosophers, if they were alive at this day, would laugh us to scorn. 
Religion alloweth no falsehood.  Divinity & christian religion admitteth no false matter or point: therefore that trope or manner of speech touching the communicating of the proprieties, is altogether true in the concrete, that is in Christ's person, being weighed, as if some whole thing should be considered jointly and together, neither was it wont otherwise to be used in the church. But in the abstract, that is in the appellative or common name, or name whereby either of the natures be called, it can never be used without ungodliness, much less can it be taken for true, that the proprieties of the Godhead may be spoken of the manhood, or the proprieties of the manhood spoken of the Godhead. And these be the points, which we being about to speak of the Lords supper, have thought needful to be propounded and delivered, that therefore remaining behind, may be the better understood, of which we will, by God's grace, speak at large in the next reading or lecture.   

THE SECOND HOMILY, or Sermon, made the eight of April. 1574.  
THis is the sum of the things that we spoke in the former Sermon, to wit, 
The sum of the former Sermon, consisting of four particular points.  that 1 all the knowledge of our salvation, did depend of the knowledge of Christ: and that we 2 had in Christ, principally two things to be considered, that is to say, such as did concern the knowledge of his person, and such also as did concern the knowledge of his offices. We have heard, 3 that under the name or word of person, there was meant Christ himself: further, that that person consisted of two natures, that is, the godhead & the manhood, both of these being so united and joined together, that the very natures themselves, & their properties also remaining sound and unconfounded, Christ by that means is become, but one subsistence or being. For we have already affirmed, the godhead so to have assumed and taken the manhood unto it, that they are not now two people, but two natures: of which two natures, the one, that is to say, the nature assumed or taken, is sustained and upheld, or (as I may so say) made a person, with the nature assuming, that is to say, the godhead: from 4 this we proceeded, to speak of such things, as were attributed to, or spoken of either of the natures, or the whole person: and we affirmed, that they were so to be used, as that we always preserved the union of the person, and continually avoided the confounding of the natures. For seeing these two natures, 
Synodus Chalcedonensis.  are as the Synod of Chalcedon saith, undividedly, unseparably, and unconfoundedlie coupled together in the personal union: necessary is it, that either of these natures, should have their own proper things attributed unto them, and therefore, not communicated unto others. Wherefore some things attributed to the godhead, and somethings also attributed unto the manhood, were so proper and peculiar to the Godhead, and the manhood, that those that were attributed to the one, could not be spoken of the other without great impiety and ungodliness. Notwithstanding, by reason of the personal union (excepting always that which is attributed to the whole person, and belongeth to both natures, as when Christ is called the mediator, and such like) such things as are proper to the godhead, and therefore as we have said can never be spoken of the manhood) are yet notwithstanding attributed to Christ as man: and again, such things as are proper to man, are spoken, and that rightly of God, but never, or at no hand of the godhead. The reason is, because that the subsistence or being is denominated even in the concrete of one of the natures only. So by the Son of GOD, we do many times understand, 
1. Timoth. 3.16.  not only the godhead of the son by itself, but Christ manifested in the flesh. And by the GOD of glory we mean GOD become or made man: and like wise by son of man, we mean man assumed or taken of the eternal son of God.  
Whereby it cometh to pass, that by reason of that personal union, some things in the concrete, may be said of the whole person, which yet notwithstanding in the abstract, 
1. Corinth. 2.8.  do agree to one of the natures only. So Saint Paul affirmeth, that the GOD of glory was crucified, which proposition is not true touching whole Christ, 
One and the self-same proposition true and untrue in several senses.  that is to say, if we regard or consider Christ, as some whole matter, consisting of some particulars: but not true, if we understand it of all or every thing belonging to Christ, that is to say, if we severally and distinctly consider his several natures, because the name of the GOD of glory, doth in the abstract agree or belong, to the only godhead. Wherefore this proposition is true in the sense as before, whereas otherwise it is a wicked and an ungodly thing to say, that the godhead was crucified. Likewise in the creed of the Apostles, 
Symbol. Apost.  we say, that we believe in jesus Christ the only Son of God, conceived, borne, suffered, &c: all which are truly and christianly spoken. And why so? Because that by the name of the Son of God in the council, we mean not God, the word, by himself alone, but GOD manifested in the flesh. So the Son of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heaven: 
john. 3.13.  the reason is, because he that is man, is God also: and yet the manhood of christ was at that time no where else, 
Acts 1.11.  but on earth, even as now also Christ's flesh being taken up into 
Matth. 28.20.  heaven, and therefore absent from us, that Son of man, is yet notwithstanding present with us, because the same christ is that true GOD, 
Isaiah 66.1. Acts 7.48.  whom neither heaven nor earth can contain. Wherefore, as these propositions are false, the Godhead is the manhood, or the manhood is the godhead: so these are true: This man is God, and GOD, the word, is man. Now then, if man be truly said to be God, by reason of the personal union, it followeth thereupon, that things attributed to the manhood may rightly be attributed to GOD: and on the other side, that things attributed to the Godhead may rightly be attributed to, or spoken of christ, man. But let us now come to the other part of the knowledge that concerneth our salvation, that is, to Christ's office. This office is declared in his name: 
Matth. 1.21.  for he is jesus, that is to say, a Saviour, because God the father hath therefore given him unto us, that he might save us, to wit, from our sins. Now he saveth us, by justifying us, because eternal life, doth of necessity agree with justice or righteousness. Wherefore he giveth us life, in giving us righteousness, and that of his mere and only grace, through the power and effectual working of his holy spirit: 
One and the self-same power of God, appeareth in man's creation and man's restitution, saving that this latter, in my judgement, and before men (though not before God) seem to be the more excellent and hard work.  for even that very self-same power of God, which laid itself open in the creation of man, must of necessity manifest itself also in restoring of man.  
This is it that I mean: as God the father did freely through his son, together with his almighty power, which is the holy-ghost, create man: so the self-same god, doth by saving justify, and by justifying save man, through his own sin fallen from grace, and yet made again, or anew, as it were, through his son, in the powerful working of the holy spirit. For the holy-ghost worketh in us that instrument which we call faith, by which only we lay hold of christ after that we know him. Neither is this faith some simple or bare accident, but a habit, as they call it in the schools, truly grafted in us, not by nature, but by gods mere and free grace. But remember, I pray you, that by laying hold of Christ, I understand the apprehension or taking hold even of Christ himself. 
Two things principally to be considered in Christ.  For we must consider two things in Christ, that is to say, he himself, god and man, and such things as be in him. 
A fit similitude.  For example (though it may be I confess, that the similitude shall not agree in all points) if in a casket or box I set before a man, treasure, he that will have the treasure hidden or shut up therein, must of necessity take the casket or box itself: 
Coloss. 2.3.  even so there are in Christ, all those treasures of wisdom and understanding: yea (and to speak all in few words) all those things, which are necessarily required to our salvation. Wherefore we must of necessity have him, that so we may obtain those things that are in him, and by the means of them eternal life. But tell us, by what instrument we do take hold of him, as it were, by a certain hand, that he may wholly become ours, and we his? Verily by faith. Now the holy-ghost is he, who going about to work in us, this excellent instrument of faith, useth for that purpose, the preaching of the outward word, 
Roman. 10.17.  by which word he alone properly worketh invisibly in us.  
But that we may the better understand this point, let us a little compare this natural instrument of Faith, to wit, the outward word with that supernatural instrument, that is, the spirit.  

Light of nature may somewhat help us to obtain natural things, but it can nothing further us in the understanding and believing of heavenly things.  The doctor or teacher by speaking, teacheth his scholars that which he speaketh. For speech is the instrument and mean, whereby we lay open the meaning of our minds one of us to an other, by understanding whereof, they to whom we speak, become skilful in those things that we speak: even so it pleaseth God to use his word written and preached, that so he might teach us the knowledge of salvation, yet the way and order in both of these is marvelously divers, if not altogether contrary. For whereas our mind by a certain engendered and natural power, is apt to conceive & understand worldly things (yea, and though it be true, that some men are more apt to learn than othersome, yet all men generally, are endued with faculty and power, to understand those points, either by books, or the mouth of their teacher) when we come to the true knowledge of God, and that his heavenly secret touching our salvation, God must of necessity use a far other power, in framing and disposing our minds, that so our ears being purged, and our hearts also, we may in our understanding comprehend these matters, and having comprehended them approve of them, yea consent unto them, and stay ourselves upon them, or else we shall never attain thereto. And this is that same invisible working power of the holy-ghost, which graveth into our hearts that which the mind perceiveth or understandeth: otherwise the pastors and teachers might speak to deaf people, as it doth by too too common examples appear at this day. Therefore the Apostle saith, 
1. Corinth. 1.23.  that the gospel is an offence or stumbling block to the jews, and that it seemeth foolishness unto the Gentiles. And in another place, that it is to some, 
2. Corinth. 2.16.  the savour of life unto life, and to othersome, the savour of death unto death. But to whom is it the savour of life unto life? Even unto such as so perceive and receive it, that they admit, and submit themselves thereto. And yet it can not be understood and received, unless the holy-ghost do by his powerful grace alter and change us. Wherefore to them than it must be the savour of death unto death that do refuse it, and cast it far from them. Neither is God, or the gospel itself, cause of this neglect or contempt, but the very corrupt nature of man: 
1. Corinth. 2.14.  for the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God.  
But to come to the matter: that word of GOD that soundeth into our ears, is an instrument ordained and directed by the holyghost to teach us, that so we may understand such things as are needful to be understood for salvation, and may by true faith apply unto ourselves such things as we understood, and have yielded unto. 
The word by itself.  And this speech of GOD talking so with us, is sometimes naked, as it were, and simple, and sometimes again, is so decked and trimmed, as it were, with other things, that even the matter itself, by reason of the rites and orders, 
The word with the sacraments annexed thereto.  annected to the speech, seemeth after a sort, not to be spoken, but to be done. Examples of the naked or bare speech, are these infinite promises of the gospel: as when we hear this, GOD so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 
john. 3.16.  that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. So we read, and daily hear in the church, the writings of the Prophets & Apostles, having exhortations, reprehensions, and comforts adjoined to the same, according as good shepherds, do their duty, publicly and privately. And yet there are sometimes joined to this word of GOD some signs, with certain rites and orders, that so the speech may not only beat orders, but also the things that are looked upon may come to our sight. And these are those things that the Latin writers call sacraments: 
August. count Faust. Memictiae lib. 19 cap. 16. & habit. tom. 6. col. 349.  and therefore Augustine also called them visible words.  
This verily is certain, that even the most ancient Latin divines did interpret that Greek word, Mystery, by the Latin word Sacrament, and that not only in places where mention is made, of the rites and orders of the Sacraments of the church, as of Baptism and the Lords supper, but generally where the question is of such things as are of themselves close & secret, and far removed from common use. 
Ephes. 1. ●.  So the calling of the Gentiles which the Apostle nameth a mystery, is of the old Latin interpreter turned, 
1. Timoth. 3.16.  sacrament. And our whole salvation, is the sacrament of godliness with him: and the conjunction of Christ, & his church, & not the marriage of man & wife, as commonly through ignorance men have supposed, is with him a sacrament likewise, 
Ephes. 5.32. Apocal. 17.7.  yea & in the revelation he mentioneth the sacrament of that unclean harlot, and the beast that carried her.  
To be short, nothing is more common amongst the Latin divines, or cometh more often in their writings, than this word, sacrament. And yet the Latin church hath in a more secret and narrow signification taken and understood this term, 
Sacrament, how it is used amongst us.  sacrament, namely, for the signs and rites, which God hath adjoined to his promises, that so he might the more fully seal up in our hearts, the salvation that he hath revealed unto us. And yet no other certainty, so far as I know, or can remember is this word, mystery, in the Apostles writings, used in that sense or signification.  
Verily, the name or word, sacrament, itself is amongst the Latinists of many significations: for which doubtfulness of the word, we that now come in the last age of the world do sustain many and great smarts. The Apostle calleth circumcision, a sign and a state: 
Roman. 4 11.  and (to speak plainly, as the matter itself requireth) though I do not willingly departed from words in use, lest one inconvenience and mischief might be heaped upon an other, yet I had liefer that the Latin authors and writers, had still kept Paul's word.  
But that we may at the length come to the purpose, 
What the lords supper is.  let that rite or order of the lords supper be a sign given us from GOD, whereby he will have testified and sealed up unto us, the communication or partaking of the body and blood of Christ. But because every thing that is used, in, and about this holy banquet, is not of one sort, manner, order, and respect, we are therefore to mark, that even this word, sacrament, 
The word Sacrament, in the narrow signification taken three ways.  and that in this more narrow signification, is of the old Latin divines taken three manner of ways. For sometimes they understand by sacraments, the very whole action, in which respect both baptism and the Lords supper itself also, are called sacraments, that is to say, mystical actions or outward rites, which do represent to our understanding some other certain thing. Sometimes again not the whole action itself, but that which is used in that action, is so termed, as in baptism the water itself, & the sprinkling or laying it on the party baptised: and in the Lord's supper, bread & wine, with the rites and orders that christ himself ordained. And this again, by a double manner of speech, for sometimes under this word, there are meant only the outward signs, as when Augustine affirmeth, 
August.  that the wicked do eat Christ, as in respect of the sacrament. And sometimes it is used for the signs, joined with the very thing itself signified, as when Irenaeus saith, 
Irenaeus.  that the sacrament consisteth of two things, one heavenly, and the other earthly: for he calleth the heavenly thing the body and blood of christ, and the earthly, the bread and the wine: and all that together he nameth, the sacrament. And this much concerning the word itself, or the name sacrament. Let us now at the length come to the matter.  
Sith now therefore, that every sacrament is a sign, we must needs put the word Sacrament in the predicament of relation or relatives, as the logicians call them, that is, amongst such things as have mutual respects one of them to an other. And sith relation must needs be, amongst sundry things which have mutual respect one of them to an other, we must therefore of necessity confess, that in the sacraments there is a sign, and the thing signified. Neither when I deliver these 2 parts, which indeed do meet, or whereof in truth all sacraments do consist, do I shut out the word. 
August.  Let the word (saith Augustine) come unto the element, and it shall become a sacrament. I do not therefore exclude or shut out the word, which is, as it were, the life & soul of either of the parts, and to which the sacraments themselves, as we have said before, are adjoined as seals. And thus far forth, even they agree with us, which otherwise do most of all dissent from us. Wherefore let us now see, which be those signs, and which be those things signified: for in this point we do not all agree. We call water the sign in Baptism, and the thing signified we call Christ's blood, by the washing whereof (we having obtained forgiveness of sins, and being mortified in our flesh) we are saved.  
But concerning baptism I will not now say any more. In the supper certainly there are two signs, or rather, signs of two sorts. For some of them are certain material and substantial signs: as for example, the bread and wine, othersome are actions and sacramental rites, which are not for all that vain or superfluous acts, but have there certain sacramental consideratton and respect, from the lords institution, of which point we will speak hereafter. I say then that in the lords supper, these are outward, material, visible, and as you would say palpable signs, that God hath annected unto his word, even the bread and wine.  
This the Papists deny, as who (after that they have confessed, that the sacraments do consist, of a sign, and a thing signified) do yet notwithstanding afterwards take the bare accidents of bread and wine, as, colour, form, and such like, for the signs themselves: for they maintain, that in the Lord's supper there remaineth not, the substance of bread and wine, but that that vanisheth away, & that there cometh in the place thereof, the substance of the Lords body and blood. Therefore in their judgement, the signs shall be the accidents. And which I beseech you? Forsooth whiteness, roundness, and redness, if they consecrate red wine, which accidents they do by a new name call kind, show, or form. 
Augustine.  But as Augustine rightly teacheth: Unless there were a certain analogy, proportion, and agreement between the things signified, & the signs themselves, they could not be counted sacraments. Now between accidents & substances there is no agreement, therefore the sacraments, as they call them, shall not be sacraments: for it behoveth the signs so to agree with the things signified, that they may represent to men's minds that which they signify. I will speak somewhat more plainly. 
A similitude.  If admonishing some one, I would have him with his eyes to behold, and with his mind to conceive a man, I will not set before him the image of a horse, or of an ox, to look upon, because that outward shape or form of an horse, or of an ox, cannot beget in his mind the conceit, portraiture, or image of a man, although all these things, that is to say, man, horse, ox, etc. are referred to one general word or term, to wit, living creature: much less than shall the shape of an herb, or form of an horse, bring to my mind and memory, the form or shape of a man: and lest of all others shall those accidents which are void of all substance, as whiteness, redness, roundness, etc. call to my remembrance things that in deed are, to wit, the body & blood of Christ. 
In that papists, make the accidents of the elements the signs of the sacraments, there followeth three absurdities thereupon.  But it was the Lord's purpose in his supper, to offer unto our minds and thoughts the very food of our souls, that is to say, Christ's body delivered to death for us, and his blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins, between which and those accidents, there is no proportion and agreement, whereas yet notwithstanding bread and wine, the very food of our bodies in deed, do most fitly even set before our very eyes almost, that same spiritual nourishment that we must have from him.  
And sith no man can be fed by accidents, how can such accidents then represent that same eternal food? Furthermore, though by the means of some accidents, material things may be set before our eyes, yet all accidents do not belong to, or agree with every matter: for many both white and round things may be beheld, which shall not for all that represent a body: and who hath told them that the bread which Christ broke and gave unto his disciples, was white or round, in such sort as they bake it and make it? Therefore the true signs of Christ's body and blood, are the very bread, and the very wine, which thing the apostle declareth, 
1. Corinth. 10.16  saying: The bread which we break, is the communion or partaking of the body of Christ: and the cup that we bless is the partaking of the blood of Christ. And that same consubstantiation or transubstantiation, is a filthy forgery and devise of satan.  
Now let us come to the thing signified: and first we will declare, 
Enemies to truth are of two sorts, that is, ignorant and malicious.  what manner and kind of signification this is that we speak of. For this is objected against us, partly by some that know not what is delivered and taught in our churches, and partly by other some that do maliciously slander us, that we say we set out to be beheld in the sacraments, as it were a vain picture, or a certain dead image, that may stir up in us the remembrance of Christ, when yet notwithstanding we are wont every where to beat upon this point, that by the sacraments Christ is not signified unto us (as when we behold Caesar's image & picture we are wont to remember Cesar) and nothing beside: for in the signs, having the word adjoined unto them, we teach Christ and all his benefits to be so represented to us and our minds, that he, together with all his graces is given to us to be enjoyed of us, and in deed to be participated, but yet after a spiritual manner, and by faith. Wherefore this action is not vain, neither are the signs, and the very rites thereof naked & empty matters, sith that which is signified, is both most truly offered unto us by God himself, and most effectually received of such as believe. This kind of signification Bernard well declareth, by the similitude of a ring which the bridegroom delivereth unto the betrothed bride, to the end that so she may not only think upon the bridegroom delivering it, but that by this pledge of promise he might after a sort deliver himself over unto her also. And therefore Christ did not only say: 
Matth. 26. 2●.  This is my body, but also he added, Take ye, and eat ye. 
Maintainers of the truth charged to be defacers of the sacraments.  Ye see brethren what we think and hold touching these mysteries: also what injury is offered us, when men say, that we do evacuate & disannul the sacraments, and transform them into certain vain spectakles and shows of Christ that is absent. 
Other men's malice must not hinder us from speaking truth.  Let us notwithstanding as plainly as possible we can declare, what that is which is so in outward signs, set before our mind to be looked into, that yet notwithstanding it is a faithful and believing soul truly exhibited and offered, to be partaken by faith. And what is that I say? Truly the body and blood of the Lord. But who teacheth us this, or so instructeth us? Even Gods own son: for he saith: This (that is to say, 
Matth. 26.26.28.  This bread) is my body. And this (that is to say, This wine contained in this cup) is my blood. By the way, I will put you in mind of one thing, 
Contention about words though it be not always good, yet when it may clear the truth, it may well be used.  lest any man might be offended because I say not This is my blood, in the masculine gender, but This is my blood, in the neuter gender, referring it either to the wine, which is the neuter gender in Latin; or to the cup, containing the wine, which in Greek is the neuter gender also: for though I love not to strive about words, yet this point is well worthy the marking. certainly he that saith: Hic est sanguis meus, in the masculine gender, that is, This is my blood, doth point to, or show forth nothing but his blood. But it is certain, that as before Christ did not propound his body unto his disciples without bread, so even in this other part when Christ said so, he would not set his blood before his disciples without wine. Therefore this Greek Pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being of the neuter gender, must needs be referred to the sign (that is to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the cup, which is therefore expressly put down in Paul) concerning which, or of which, the blood itself may be spoken: whereupon this ariseth, that the Greek Pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this, cannot declare any other matter or thing than this, that is to say, this thing or matter, which I hold in my hands, to wit, the wine that is contained in this cup, which indeed cannot be expressed by this word, Hic, a pronoun of the masculine gender, as the meanest Grammarians may well and easily perceive. 
Christ's very body & blood is the matter o● thing signified in the Lord's supper.  But to return to the matter: By these things you may perceive, what we understand by the name or word of the thing itself, or by the term truth, sacramentally sigifined, namely the body & blood of the Lord jesus.  
Wherefore first of all we descent from the anabaptists, 
In the matter of the supper we agree not, either with the Anabaptists or sacramentaries.  who in stead of the matter of the sacrament signified, do put down I know not what shadow or figurative thing, as though it were some warlike cognizance, pledge, or watchword, by which christians might be discerned from such as be no christians.  
Next we descent from them likewise, 
Or with such as understand it only, concerning Christ's merits sundered from Christ himself.  who for the matter of the Sacrament, established Christ's force and power, as also his merits, but yet severed from Christ himself. For Christ said not this is the merit of my body, 
Luke. 22.19.20.  which is delivered for you, but This is my body, and this is my blood: neither is it without cause definitively before hand added, which is delivered for you, and which is shed for you. So that it could not more plainly have been said, that very Christ himself (whose body was given for us, and whose blood was shed for us) is truly and verily given us in the supper, to be the food of eternal life to us. And therefore the matter of that sacrament is in deed that very body which he offered up for us on the cross, and that blood which he shed for the forgiveness of our sins: so far off are we from deeming or thinking of some figurative or typical body, or some allegorical blood, as certain most fond men (who do not indeed well understand their own words, mind, and opinion) are not ashamed to speak and write of us, that we so hold. Now I come to the third point of this discourse: for first I have spoken of the signs, and secondly of the things signified. 
Two sorts of people that in the sacrament of the supper have erred in and about the right conjunction of the signs, and the thing signified.  Now we are to see in the third place, what is the knitting or joining together of the signs, and the things signified, wherein for the most part consisteth the whole determination of all this controversy touching the sacraments. The papists have altered the joining together of the signs, and the thing signified, into a transmutation or change one of them into another: than which, what can be more absurd? For certainly, if the bread and the wine be in deed changed into the body and blood of Christ, as they affirm, than we cannot choose but affirm also, that this is not to join the signs with the things signified, but to change the signs into the things themselves, or else the signs vanishing away or perishing, to put the things themselves in their room. But let these men go, as who in deed deserve not any confutation, their assertions be so absurd and blockish. There are others, at this present no less hard & sharp against us, than the very papists themselves, who will have the thing signified, that is to say, the very body of Christ so to be joined with or under, or in the bread, that in that very place where that bread is, there must also be the body of Christ: which in like sort is to be understood also, touching the wine and the blood of Christ. If a man then should demand, where is the very body & blood of Christ in the action of the supper: 
A gross absurdity or two following consubstantiation.  if we will answer according to their opinion, we must say, that it is truly and in deed in our hands, and in our mouth, and therefore certainly, unless it presently vanish away, within this body of ours, with, in, or under the very signs of the bread & the wine, being eaten and drunken. Now we will show, and that by reasons not fet from human philosophy (as our adversaries untruly say we use such) but from the very word of God itself, 
Two things to be handled: viz. the confutation of the adversaries, & the maintenance of the truth.  that this consubstantiation (as we may truly call it) is no less absurd and erroneous than transubstantiation, as also that that communion or partaking, which out of the pure word of God we propound and teach in our churches, is a most secret and divine matter. Wherefore our judgement is quite & clean contrary to either of those opinions before rehearsed. To begin, we hold that such things as are spoken of the sacraments, must be understood sacramentally. For what I pray you is or can be more upright than to have all things spoken, rightly understood and perceived, as the nature of that matter will bear, whereof there is question? 
A similitude or two, explaining the point he hath in hand.  certainly such things as the lawyers speak touching the law, must be understood even as they are used in that very science of the law: and we must needs give the self same judgement of all things and arts whatsoever. Such things therefore, as are taught and delivered touching the sacraments, must be sacramentally understood. What manner of conjunction than is the conjunction or knitting together of the sign and the thing sacramentally signified? Verily it is sacramental. The signs therefore, and the things are joined together by that relation or respect, which is between the signs and the things signified: which yet once again, I do most plainly declare after this manner.  
When we hear some man speaking unto us in the tongue we understand, the words that come to our ears and strike them, do very lively represent that unto our minds for the expressing and signification whereof they were used. 
Another similitude.  For example: as soon as we hear the word Rome, presently we think upon that city. If a man name Cesar or the emperor, Cesar or the emperor presently cometh to our memory. The reason whereof verily is that, that is well delivered and taught in schools: to wit, such things as are in the voice or words are signs of the affections, that are in the soul or mind. There is the self same consideration to be had of the sacraments: for the sacraments are nothing else, but visible words, that is, representing, through our eyes unto our minds, things signified, as words heard, do by our ears convey understanding to our minds likewise. Therefore these visible sacraments of bread & wine bring to pass, that when I see and receive that bread, and that wine joined with the word of God, I do withal conceive in my mind, and understand, that body that was given for me, and that blood that was shed for me, as though I were led or carried even unto the thing itself being present. And because I am commanded not only to look upon these signs with mine eyes, but also to take them, 
Math. 26.26.27.  eat them, drink them, therefore doth the faithful mind even lay hold of, and apply unto himself those things so signified, as they are delivered and offered. Touching which point we will largely discourse in the fourth place, to wit, when we shall come to handle this question, how both the signs and the things signified are received of us: whereas now we only dispute or speak touching the sacramental conjunction of the signs themselves, 
Two errors maintained by the adversaries.  with the thing signified. Such as are not content with this sacramental conjunction, fall into a double error, not only that they do in a a great and gross error verily establish a real union of the signs with the things signified, of which we have spoken before: but also they further add this, that even in that very place wheresoever the signs are offered to such as come to communicate, there is present the flesh and the blood of Christ, that is to say, they would have us confess that even his very humanity or manhood is in deed present there, and is to be received or taken by bodily instruments. As for us, we affirm that Christ in respect of his manhood, 
The substance of that we are to know or believe, touching the conjunction of the signs with the things signified in the Lord's supper.  even as when he was upon the earth, was no where else, but in that very place where he was conversant, so now he is not any where else, but above all heavens, into which he ascended: and that therefore he is not now together with the signs offered to the body, but together with the signs truly delivered and given to the believing soul, even as by the word we hear it, and by the sign we see it. Now it remaineth that we do by some reasons fet from the word of GOD well weigh and consider whether they or we serve from the truth.  

The first reason. Rom. 1.3. Rom. 9.5. Galath. 4.4. Philip. 2.7. Hebr. 2.16. john. 16.7.28. Matth. 28.20. Acts. 1.9.  The holy scripture witnesseth, that the son of God did personally take unto himself a true and very body. The self same scripture doth attribute unto the flesh of our saviour Christ assumed, and that both before and after the glorification thereof, such things as do plainly prove the truth of a natural body, as that he came, that he went away, that he was sometimes present, and sometimes absent. These things than do of necessity follow the truth of Christ's body, which if a man take from it, he must also needs take away the truth of the manhood of Christ, and so come at the length to the heresy of the Marcionits or Dokits. 

Marcionits or Dokits, they were called Marcionits of one Martion, whose principal error was this, that Christ did not appear indeed, and suffer indeed, etc. upon the cross, but in fantasy or ghostlike apparition.  
Concerning Dokitiae see homil. 1. before going.  
Tertullian wrote most learnedly against this Martion.   But these things are manifestly taken away, by their opinion, who say that Christ's flesh is now also and that in deed and verily present, both into the heavens, into which he ascended, and in the earth likewise, and that also in all places, in which that bread and that wine is delivered or given to such as come to receive it. I will say nothing of them that are not ashamed to affirm that Christ's flesh even from the very first moment of the personal union, was together and in deed present, both in the crib, and in the heaven, yea every where present. To this first of all they answer: 
The adversaries objection.  that Christ's body cannot without great wickedness, be made subject to the law of nature, for that body that was taken into the unity of the person, hath received far other unmeasurable gifts and graces.  
But here I beseech you weigh well what we answer: 
The answer.  We confess that there is great regard to be had of that same grace and gift of the personal union, by which we cannot but confess that the manhood of our saviour Christ was so highly exalted, that only the Deity or Godhead excepted (according to which he is even greater than himself) it hath attained and gotten a name, which is above all names, that is to say, 
Philip. 2.9.10.  that all things created are subjecteth unto the same, yet for all that, that followeth not hereupon, which these men coldly suppose, or fond imagine: for this is the question now between us, whether Christ's manhood do in deed place itself every where, or in many places together at one time, to be received with our hands and mouth, and not what it hath obtained from another, or in respect of the other nature, to which it is personally united: but rather whether this propriety (which in deed is proper to the Godhead alone) be in the manhood, to wit, to be every where, or in divers places at one and the self same season. 
School men fail many times in terms, but now and then hit the matter.  And this is that matter which the schoolmen have by a barbarous word, if you respect terms, but not by an unfit word, if men will weigh the matter, called by the name of habitual grace. Now this difference being already put down, which scarcely any unless they be altogether most contentious, will deny, we say, that such do in deed evacuat Christ, or make him of no force, as deny Christ's flesh, 
Though Christ man, be not every where, yet Christ God and man is every where.  as in respect of another, that is to say, not in itself, but according as it is joined to another, to wit, so far forth, as it is personally united with the person of the word, to be truly and in deed every where: much less will we deny him to be present in that place, wheresoever in the world his supper is administered. For why should we deny, that concerning christs flesh, which in a certain measure hath place in all bodies: yea, even there where some one whole thing, is become or made one, after an other sort, than by personal union. 
A similitude.  A tree or a house is many times said to be in a river, whereas yet notwithstanding the upper part, either of the one or of the other, appearing above the water or river, and being considered in itself, is indeed in the air, and not in the water: in like sort, I am said to sit in this seat or chair, whereas yet notwithstanding, I sit, but in one part of my body only. Likewise I am said to speak, whereas only the tongue, considered, in, and by itself, speaketh. The reason and truth of these speeches dependeth upon this, that a tree, a house, a man, &c: is lemma self-same whole thing, compacted and made of his several parts. For otherwise that could not be truly affirmed or said, of two things in deed separated and sundered one of them from an other. 
Application of the similitude.  So a man may truly affirm whole christ to be every where, and therefore much more with the bread in the supper, and yet no otherwise, but so far forth as Christ is considered, as some one whole substance and being, and so also as the proprieties of the natures be not by this means confounded. But the whole of Christ, that is to say, every thing belonging to Christ, can not therefore for all that, be said to be any where else, than to be conversant in one place, at one and the self-same time: for that can no more be spoken of Christ's humanity in itself (unless we will with Eutyches and Brentius, 
Eutyches. Brentius.  confound the proprieties of either nature) than this my hand can be said to sit, or these my feet may be said to speak. If there be any that understand not these things, I beseech them to learn to understand the same, and to have more regard and consideration, both of themselves, and of others, through whose sides, they would, if they could destroy the truth itself.  

He turneth that upon the adversaries which they objected against the truth.  To come to the point. They do not spoil the manhood of Christ, of that his infinite majesty, who teach that flesh of his to be the flesh of the Son of God, but they rather that transform and change him who is God and man in one person, and make him but to bear or carry, God or the godhead: neither yet do they spoil the manhood of his majesty, or bring him back unto the state and condition of other men, which according to the grace that they call habitual (that is to say, cleaving to the very flesh of Christ, as, if it were to his peculiar subject or matter whereunto it should stick) do acknowledge it to be unspeakablye more high and excellent than all other things whatsoever without exception (excepting only the godhead of the word, according to which he himself is greater than himself, as we said before) but they indeed bring it to nothing, or into some image or sign in their own conceits at the least, who, while they go about to attribute supernatural things unto him, attributing yet notwithstanding unnatural things to him, or things against nature, do of necessity destroy and overthrow, even man's nature itself: for that ceaseth to be human, which having lost the essential proprieties thereof, must needs cease to be the which before it was. But we will encounter with them by an other reason.  
If this verily be to diminish Christ's glory, and to debase his majesty, to affirm, that he can not indeed be at one time in many places, how much more than must this be the debasing of him, to say, that he was mortal, yea, that he did indeed die? And yet we see, that this is that, which the Apostle allegeth for the commendation of the most excellent love that the Son of GOD carried towards us, 
Rom. 5, 6, 7, 8, etc. Philip. 2.8.  which was yet so much the more great and excellent, by how much he did the more debase himself.  
Now then, if the real taking of all infirmities upon himself (sin only excepted) hath taken nothing at all from his glory, 
Hebr, 4.15.  or impaired and lessened the same, how much less hath this done it, that he hath for ever taken, together with very flesh, the very proprieties of flesh, and that unchangeably, and without confounding? But they object further, 
Another objection. The answer thereto.  that they mean not to abolish those proprieties. Then they must needs attribute contrary things, to one and the self-same subject, & that altogether in one and the self-same respect, to wit, to be circumscribed and tied to a place, which is the natural property of an instrumental body, 
The adversaries absurdity aswell against reason as religion.  and yet notwithstanding, at one and the self-same time to be both in heaven, and in innumerable places, or else, every where, if you will, in earth: and so one and the self-same flesh shall have a quantity set it, and also be without quantity, that is to say, shall be both a body, and not a body. And what is this else, I pray you, but to make every thing of any thing, as we commonly say? but let us hear what they do yet further object. 
The third objection.  They will have that time that went before the glorifying of our saviour Christ's flesh, to be distinguished from that time, in which that his flesh was received up into glory. We grant it: 
An answer thereto taken from a double absurdity.  but withal we say, that if this real conjunction of the flesh with the bread, do depend of the glorification of Christ's flesh, it can have no place, in that first institution of the supper, because this flesh was not as then glorified, but rather most nigh to debasing & humbling. Besides this flesh is offered unto us at this present to be partaken by us, not as glorious or glorified, 
The transfiguration of Christ mentioned, Math. 17.2.3. etc. feareth not the adversaries,  but (that I may so speak) even, as it were, hanging upon the cross. Against this exception, they oppose and set the miracle of Christ's transfiguration. But what agreement is there betwixt these two things? For of a truth, nothing unnatural or against nature fell out in the transfiguration, neither was there any thing there done, that did destroy or overthrow the essential proprieties of christs flesh: even as righteous men shall not therefore or then cease to be very men, when they shall shine as the sun, 
Daniel. 12.3.  or brightness of the firmament or stars. But to be every where, or in many places at one time, is a property so contrary to all things created (as which are indeed finite) that it belongeth only unto the godhead alone, because that alone is infinite. To conclude, we do in one word as it were, 
Glorification, and wherein it standeth.  answer thus. Glorification took not from Christ's body a corporal or bodily nature (that is to say, quantity or circumscriptiblenes) but it abolished the infirmity & weakness thereof, which weakness he for a time took upon him. Now by the word infirmity or weakness, we mean not any essential propriety in Christ's flesh, but that only which sin brought into man's nature, yet altogether without the spot or taint of sin, as it was in christ. This is that I mean: where Christ's flesh is said to be infirm and weak, before the glorification of it, that is not spoken in respect of the Godhead: to the which he always hath been, is, and shall be inferior: but in consideration of that great glory, into which afterwards that his flesh was exalted, yet so that there must always remain safe and sound (as I have said heretofore) those proprieties, of which the very truth of the body itself consisteth: amongst which, quantity, and therefore circumscriptiblenes obtaineth so excellent & notable a place, 
Cyrillus.  that cyril feareth not to affirm, that God himself could not possibly be every where, if he were partaker of quantity. 
They affirm Christ's body to be every where. He calleth them so, because they set themselves against nature and reason. john. 20.27.  Therefore these men I mean both ubiquitaries and Antiphisitae, having openly denied the quantity of Christ's flesh, must either get them to Eutyches his tents, and take part with him: or if out of the words of Christ (who after his resurrection, willeth some to behold & feel him) they will prove, that he hath not put off the quantity of his flesh, than they must show us, that Christ's flesh, according to the quantity thereof, can be at one time every where, or in many places, which even the godhead itself, if it have quantity, can not perform, as cyril openly and truly writeth, whose authority otherwise, these men do most especially abuse: for this real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar: yea, they must prove, that the Angels lied, when they said: 
Matth. 28.6.  He is risen, he is not here. For whatsoever distinction they may use, if we can show a place where Christ's flesh is not, than we are sure it can not be every where: and if it can not be every where, than neither can the whole flesh itself be at one time, and together in many places. Hence also it may appear, 
Brentius and his followers.  how absurd and unreasonable Brentius his opinion is, and those that follow him, 
Philip. 2.6, 7.  who attribute these words of the Apostle, The form of God, and the form of a servant, to the only humanity or manhood of Christ in itself. For they understand by the form of God, that their own forgery and devise of all majesty, and all presence, as they call it, with which, as they say, the flesh of Christ was verily in itself endued from the very first moment of the personal union, which it pleased him for a time not to make manifest: and this is it they mean by the word, humbling and abasing. And the form of a servant they call that state and condition, 
He confuteth Brentius, and such as maintain him, as usurp the place of the Philippians, or rather falsely interpreting it.  in which it pleased him to remain, so often as he would not use the form of God. Very well said surely: if a man will attribute to one subject or matter, two essential forms, what shall he else do, but confound one and two together, and make them both one? And what is that else, but to be mad outright? Then it remaineth, that by this word or term, form, these men understand, neither the godhead itself, nor the manhood, but a divers condition and state of this his manhood, as which inwardly, & in itself, was beautified and adorned, with all the powerful graces & effects of the godhead powered into the same, and yet that he did not always manifest and disclose them.  
But if this be true, 
Two absurdities or errors.  we must learn to define the personal union, not by the effusion or pouring forth of effectual graces, but of virtues rather. Moreover, understand as large an effusion and pouring forth of gifts and graces into the flesh, as possibly a man can, I would feign see, or hear some that could tell me, how it shall not be a most open blasphemy for a man to affirm, that the manhood may by any means, without robbery be made equal to the godhead? What shall become of that sentence so often repeated in the ancient Fathers and old writers, to wit, that the Son as in respect of his flesh, is less than the Father, and inferior unto him, yea, and therefore less than himself, and inferior unto himself, because he is, as in respect of his godhead coequal with his Father? Wherefore that interpretation is to be refused as false, yea, as wholly and altogether savouring of the heresy of Eutyches. 
another objection of the adversaries.  They allege yet this also: The place (say they) is not of the substance of a body: and that therefore the substance of the body is not abolished, though place be taken away from it.  

The answer.  Certainly it would grieve me to the heart, to behold the maintainers of consubstantiation, to be so driven to their shifts, that by propounding such absurd things, they should give themselves over to be scorned of the most popish and gross maintainers of Transubstantiation (upon whose foundation, yet notwithstanding they build up their own conceits:) saving that I see, even those very defenders of Transubstantiation themselves (who have been brought up with the teats of that most filthy sow Sarbona) to be so thrust to the wall in this point, 
The name of a college in Paris, where the popish divines are maintained.  that they supposed, that with this dirt, the truth might be so daubed over, 
He very notably correcteth himself.  that it should not lie open to every man's eye and sight. What wonderful impudency and shamelessness is this (bear with me brethren, and pardon me, O ye hearers this my most just sorrow and grief) for men to deal so sophistically and subtly in God's church, which is the schoole-house of truth? 
The word Body in authors referred to two predicaments, to wit substance and quantity, but yet in divers respects.  Any man endued with reason can hardly be ignorant of this, that this word body is sometimes referred to substance, and sometimes to quantity. Therefore a body is sometimes called, a corporal or bodily substance, consisting of matter, form, and substance: and sometimes it is called that which consisteth of three dimensions or mesuring, to wit, length, breadth, and depth. So in this question sometimes we consider Christ's body, as that same material, substantial, visible, and palpable thing, which Christ took unto him for our sake: and after this sort verily quantity, as it is an accident, is not part of that substance. And sometimes again, we use this word body, that so, that which is defined, by that threefold quantity, may be the better distinguished and known, 
The adversaries must either conclude against reason, or else yield to the truth.  from that which is without quantity. And after this manner verily, these men must either prove, that the definition doth not declare the substance of these things which are defined: or else they must with us confess, that a body is nothing else, but that very threefold quantity continue, as they call it, that is to say, such a quantity, as whose parts are joined together in a common term.  
If this be once taken away, it cannot be denied, but that of necessity Christ's true and very body must perish, whether we consider it, as it is glorified, or as it is set in weakness: yea, Christ himself shall be accused of lying, who proveth the truth of his flesh even after his resurrection, by those inseparable accidents, that is to say, his corporal or bodily quantity.  

He passeth to an other discourse touching the word Place.  Hitherto we have spoken of the body, now let us see what may be said touching the place. What if out of Augustine's plain and evident words we should say: Take from body's space of places, 
Augustine.  they shall be no where: and because they shall be no where, they shall not be at all? What will they say to this? That is true in other bodies will they say, but in Christ's body not so, or, it agreeth not thereto. But I answer, that it doth most fitly agree to Christ's body, of the absence of which from the earth, Augustine doth most properly reason in that Epistle.  
And truly, if it were true, that christs body were in diverse respects different from ours, than he could not be of the self same substance with us, and like unto us in all things (sin only excepted. 
Hebr. 4.15. He explaineth the question. ) I will add yet somewhat more, that the matter may appear more plain, though by that which hath been said, it be evident enough. When we affirm, that a place can not be sundered or taken from a body, that is, from that thing, which consisteth of three dimensions or measusuring before mentioned (which thing the maintainers of consubstantiation do, when they flee to those same starting holes of his omnipotency or almighty power, which hereafter we will God willing discover) we mean not by this word place, 
The word place considered after two sorts.  some peculiar space, which by and by may be altered and changed, as when Christ departing from one place went to an other: for after this sort this or that place is so evident to the body, that by most light & easy motion, one being removed or taken away, another succeedeth: but we call a place that same condition or state, of a true & very instrumental body whereby it necessarily followeth, that wheresoever the thing itself is, it must be circumscribed in that place, or tied thereto, neither can it, while it is there be in any other place. This accident, though it be not the very substance of the body, as in respect that the body itself is a substance, yet verily as it is a quantity it formeth & frameth the body, and it is an inseparable accident of the body, aswell as of the substance. So that there is no man (I suppose) but he understandeth how vain and sophistical that exception is. But (say they) Christ's body walked upon the waters: therefore they do not presently take away the truth of Christ's body, 
another objection with the answer thereto. Math. 14.25, etc.  that attribute unto it an extraordinary condition, or such a state as can not be declared. And who (I pray you) denieth this, or any part of it? The question is not, whether Christ as in respect of his flesh, and that in the time of his infirmity and weakness also, could accomplish many things over and beside the ordinary laws of man's nature. But this is the question, 
The state of the question in controversy.  whether this doctrine concerning the real presence of Christ's very flesh in many, or all places at once, can stand with the truth of Christ's flesh, whether we consider it, after or before the glorification thereof.  
Now we stoutly and safely deny that Christ's flesh at any time, can be in many, or in all places at once, and we say, that it can not by any necessary or fit consequence be gathered, either from this his walking upon the waters, or in that he entered into the place where his disciples were, the doors being shut, or in that he arose again, the stone of the Sepulchre or Tomb, 
john. 20.19. Math. 28.2. Certain reasons alleged for proof of his assertion.  not being removed or rolled away by man's hands. And of this we have sundry reasons: for first these miracles seem rather to be done, in the waters themselves, made hard and firm, not only under Christ's feet, but under Peter's also, than in Christ's own body, the like whereof also is to be said touching the wall and sepulchre, 
Matth. 14.29.  the heap or weight whereof did suddenly yield unto the body of the creator. Moreover, though we should grant that they were to be seen in the very body of Christ, yet doth not the withholding of a bodily weight, or the withdrawing of it for a time, or else this thinness, as a man would say, of a bodily heap, either abolish a body itself (sith it doth at any hand, take away the quantity of a body) or imply contradiction, as they are wont to say in the schools. But we affirm, that a true and very body, can neither want quantity or circumscriptiblenesse, but it shall cease to be a body, neither can it be at once in one place, as circumscribed, and in an other place, as not circumscribed, but that we must of necessity conclude, both that it is a body, and that it is not a body, which are assertions merely contrary. The sum of all these things is this, or tendeth to this end: namely, that this opinion of the real consubstantiation of Christ's flesh with bread and wine, is most false and untrue, as by means whereof the truth of Christ's flesh is utterly abolished. Now again, 
The second reason against consubstantiation. See the first before, pag. 65.  even by this most weighty argument following, may this forgery and devise be confuted, namely because it plainly and wholly standeth up against the analogy and proportion of faith, so little need, or just cause have the defenders thereof, to call us back to the power and force of faith. 
Acts. 1.11. Mark. 16.19.  The scripture witnesseth in many places, that Christ's flesh ascended up above the heavens, and that there also at this day it remaineth, we may not therefore seek for it in earth: otherwise it should not be an ascending, but a vanishing away for the time. certainly, 
A general rule  no man can truly be said to come or go up thither, where he now was, or to go away, descend, or be absent from the place where he remaineth. Look therefore in how many places these things are spoken of Christ, according to his flesh, and that without any figurative kind of speech by so many most strong and invincible testimonies, there is confirmed unto us the true taking away of the body of Christ from us, and also that real dotage of the presence of Christ's flesh upon the earth, that is to say, this opinion which the Dokits & Marcionits maintain sufficiently confuted. 
Of these see before, pag. 70.  As for that that they urge against us, 
An objection answered.  saying: How absurd is that, that Christ's flesh is now in heaven and no where else? It is easily answered, that we speak no otherwise than Peter, 
Acts. 3.21. Acts. 1.11.  yea than the angels themselves have spoken. And though they say further, that by this means we shut up Christ, as it were in a prison, where as yet notwithstanding the right hand of God (that is to say, his heavenly power and authority) whereat he sitteth is every where. What for all this? Answer us this, and tell us whether that being on the earth, & absent from heaven (for he had not ascended thither where he was then present) or whether that being in the virgin's womb, or wrapped up in swaddling clothes, lying in the crib, he was shut up in prison? Yea sith every body is contained in his own place, yea & things without bodies, are yet notwithstanding included in the propriety of their nature (for only the Godhead is infinite) what can follow else of this their most absurd argument and reason, 
Absurdity in reason, by the adversaries argument.  than that all things are full of prisons and prisoners? And though we should say, that under the terms of sitting at the right hand, 
Philip. 2.9.  there is meant the very self same thing which the apostle simply and without trope saith, that Christ (to wit as he is man) hath received, that is to say, a name above all names, yet it should be no less fond and absurd, thereupon to gather and conclude the presence of Christ's flesh in every place, 
A similitude.  that if we would affirm that the body of some king is as large and wide, as the bounds of his kingdom are broad. But say they, 
Another objection answered.  Christ being present governeth all things. We answer, that is true, as he is God, and yet the person of Christ is not for all that rend in sunder or divided. For even Christ man, being every where the Lord, is present also every where, much more in the supper, 
In what respect Christ is present every where.  howbeit not as in respect of the manhood itself but as in regard of another, that is to say, as he is one person, not in himself as in regard of his manhood, but in the very nature of the Godhead itself, of which the humanity was so assumed, that it is one subsistence or being together with it, as a little while ago we declared. Therefore the man Christ is in deed present, to wit, as he the self same is Christ God, and yet the manhood of Christ is not now in any other place than in heaven. 
The third objection answered. Ephes. 4.10.  But it is yet further objected, that Christ went up into heaven to fulfil all things. I grant it: whereupon also I gather, that he fulfilled not all things, till he ascended, and that therefore the definition of the personal union taken from habitual grace, as they call it (of which we have said some what before) is false and fond. Yea, I gather this further, that if he did truly and in deed ascend, that that his flesh was not in heaven before he ascended thither, & that it ceaseth to be on the earth, after that he ascended from thence into heaven. But say they, he ascended to fulfil or fill all things: 
The same objection urged, yet answered.  therefore he filleth all things. We answer that he performed that, for which he ascended, that is to say, he filled or fulfilled the whole mystery of our salvation, which the prophets foretold, and the full state whereof (as in respect of that for the performance of which Christ came into the world) is finished by Christ's ascension, as it had the beginning of it from his coming into the earth. But if we had rather refer these words (which also we may do) to the fruit that followed his ascension into heaven (by which, not as a servant, but as a son he took upon him, and entered into the kingdom and government) than we shall perceive, that he therefore ascended, 
john. 14. 2●  that sending down the Holy ghost, he might bestow upon his church all necessary gifts, for he ascended that he might even lad men with his graces, 
Ephes. 4.8.  and heap up benefits, blessings, and gifts upon them, which seeing the apostle himself speaketh even in so many words as it were, what man in his right wit would believe them, that will transfer that to the very person of Christ, which is spoken of the office of his kingdom, and the mighty and effectual power thereof. 
The fourth objection answered. Luke. 24.31.  But they yet further say, he was taken out of their sight, or he vanished away from it. I grant it, but if from hence they may gather, this their presence in all places, or in many places, or that which they call majesty every where (it is wonderful and pitiful to behold, what monstrous opinions in a very short space have sprung up) why may not we affirm the same likewise touching Philip? 
Acts. 8.39.40.  for he suddenly did so banish out of the eunuchs eyes & sight, that he was found afterward at Azolus. And what was wont sometimes to be tied the prophets themselves, appeareth by the example of Elias his disciples. 
2. Kings. 2 3. The fift objection. Acts. 7.35.36.  another place they object Stephan saw Christ, therefore he was on the earth. I deny that, for he being on earth, saw him set in heaven, as the holy history declareth. And to what purpose I pray you, should he see him in heaven, if he be at his side, on the earth? So that this miracle is to be considered, not in the very body of Christ, but in stephan's eyes. Neither did that rite and ceremony of the church, used from all antiquity, whereby men with a loud voice were admonished to have their hearts lifted upward, saying: Lift up your hearts, 
The use of these words: Lift up your hearts, in the celebration of the supper.  tend to any other end, but to cause men to mount up to heaven. For to what purpose should that saying, Lift up, be used, if we had that in our mouths and in our hands which we seek for? 
The sixth objection answered. 1. Corinth. 15.8. Acts. 9, 4.5. etc. August. in psal. 54.  Again: Christ was seen of Paul as he went to Damascus. Augustine shall answer this for us. He writing upon the fourth and fift psalms, saith: The head that was in heaven, cried aloud for the body that was in the earth. Much like unto this form, 
Acts. 22.17.  is that which they yet object, namely that Paul saw the Lord, when he prayed in the temple: therefore the Lord was in the very temple, we confess that he saw him, but in a vision or trance. It was therefore a spiritual vision, neither belongeth it any whit at all to this present matter in hand: and yet though we say it was a spiritual vision, we mean not that Paul saw any false or forged thing. Hitherto also we must refer other words of the same apostle, seeming ●o tend to the same end, for they may receive the same answer likewise. 
The last shift of the adversaries fully answered.  They run at the last to the same starting hole or shift (which I call by that name, as in respect of them that do abuse it) of the almighty power of Christ. And when we set against them this sure ground, that God cannot perform somethings, than they throw out against us bitter outcries, as though that we were manifestly and altogether blasphemous and evil men. For mine own part I would require this one thing of them, 
The author's request to the adversaries, standing upon two parts.  that they would with an upright mind suffer such as amongst us shall answer them, and that they would not be carried so frivolously, yet weakly (the Lord knoweth) against such, as whose life (God be thanked for it) freeth them from all suspicion of blasphemy. 
The first reason.  If every one deny the power of God that saith there is something which God cannot do, than they certainly were blasphemers, that said, God deceived, God lied, and that he could not die. Yea but they will say, that in as much as these things are not of any part of his power, but rather imbecilities and wants, this is not to make GOD weak or feeble, but most mighty rather. And this certainly is the same, that long ago amongst others, 
Theodoretus.  Theodoret did answer the Eutychian heretics, who defended this very self same doctrine, by the very self same reason. Let us stay here then a while, and as we say in the proverb, pitch our staff for a season. It is without all controversy or doubt, that God, who at the first made all things of nothing, is able utterly to turn all things up side down, yea even with his very beck or breath to abolish and destroy them all: and yet for all that he cannot effect or bring to pass this, that that which hath been should not be, 
Certain things that God cannot do.  or that some one thing should be and not be, at one & the self same time, or that it should at one and the self same time, be such a thing, and not such a thing. The reason is because of two contradictory speeches, one of them must of necessity be false: 
Numbers. 23.19.  but sith he is God in deed, he cannot lie, and therefore he cannot either will or do such things as are contradictory contrary one of them to another. Wherefore he shall convince GOD of lying and himself of folly, woosoever he be, that will cloak and cover Gods almighty power with this devise, by which Christ's body is circumscriptible, and yet it shall in deed together be present in many places at once (which properly belongeth to that only infinite nature) whereby also this is forged & framed, to wit, that the body is finite and infinite, great and not great, yea a body and not a body. 
The second reason.  And this I dare avouch further: Whatsoever God would once have without exception, to be unchangeable, that cannot be changed by him, much less can it be abolished or done away: the reason is, because God cannot departed from himself, or be contrary or unlike unto himself. And I make this without all doubt or controversy, even that such is Christ's body, namely, that it hath always been, & must of necessity for ever be a very or true body, and therefore also circumscriptible and tied to a place. 
The third reason.  Yea, this I say further, that God cannot be created by God, nor that a thing created can be turned into God: for if there were many gods, he could not be God, to whom another created were equal, neither could that created god (so called abusively) be God, because that to be God, & to have a beginning of time or in time, are merely contradictory things or speeches. 
The conclusion of this point.  Christ's flesh therefore could not become the Godhead, & therefore could it not be endued with the incommunicable proprieties of the Godhead, that is to say, with such proprieties belonging to the Godhead, as cannot be communicated to any other, but the Godhead alone, amongst which, this, to be infinite, & to be wholly & at one time every where, is not reckoned in the last place. Is this I pray you to deny Gods almighty power? or do we in this follow the ungodliness of the blasphemous fellow Pliny? 
Plinius, and his errors.  for he denieth that God is able to bestow immortality upon mortal people, or to call back again such as are dead: which is not only falsely, but wickedly spoken also. The self same party denieth that God is able to kill himself, or to bring to pass, 
Truth may be propounded by some, though they perhaps do not well understand the cause thereof.  that he that hath lived, and is now dead should not have lived then when he lived, or that twice ten should not be twenty. And here in howsoever he fell foully in the former, he hath not miss the truth, but rightly denied these things to be in God: only herein he did most beastly slip, 
The cause why God cannot do some things, is not so much want of power in him, as because he cannot or will not be found contrary to his nature.  that not knowing or believing the nature of God, he would have these things to be arguments and proofs of God's imbecility and weakness, whereas contrariwise, we know and believe, that he cannot therefore do these things, because he himself cannot perish, nor lie, nor be changed.  
But lo we are now at the length come to them, who seem most equal and upright above all other, who also avoiding all other forgeries and devices, do stay themselves only upon these words of Christ's: This is my body, 
Such answered as urge the bare words: This is my body.  and This cup is my blood: we must say they believe Christ's words though he speak never so new and unaccustomed matters, yea though he speak things that our flesh and senses cannot believe. We grant all this. But what if they seem not agreeable to the truth, and the analogy or proportion of faith? Verily they are to be believed indeed, seeing that the son of God is the truth itself, & yet these things or points must be so expounded, 
Two rules meet to be observed in expounding such places, as seem contrary to truth.  that they may altogether agree with the 1 rest of the places of holy scripture, and the chief 2 grounds or heads of christian religion: for whatsoever doth dissent, though it be never so little from these rules, must of necessity be false and unsound. Now we have heretofore at large declared and proved, that such and so corrupt is that interpretation which establisheth either transubstantiation, or a real consubstantiation, of the signs and the things signified. 
Two christian fruits arising by expounding the words of the supper sacramentally.  But on the other side if we grant a sacramental being of the thing signified (which as it is true in other sacraments, so also in this mystery) than we shall preserve 1 the truth of Christ's flesh, and uphold 2 the analogy and proportion of faith. Wherefore this interpretation is to be admitted & received, as true, and well agreeing with right and sound doctrine. 
An objection answered.  But say they, there is no place here for a trope or figure: yea the very plain word is simply to be observed. But who I beseech you hath given you this rule specially, sith this is most manifest, yea and so usual also, that when they speak of sacraments (which also are themselves figures) they speak figuratively. Neither think I that any man can scarcely bring forth or allege an example of a contrary speech. You must therefore allege a cause, or render a reason, why that which is of force in other sacraments should not likewise be of strength and power in this sacrament, or speech touching the same. But let us some what more nighlie look into the matter, and well weigh all and every of the words of institution. First I demand, what the thing is pointed at, or painted out by this pronoun demonstrative, Hoc, that is, 
The Pronounce Hoc, that is This, expounded.  This. The papists answer, that it is an identical proposition, that is, 
The popish opinion declared and confuted.  that one and the self same thing speaketh of itself, and that therefore nothing is showed forth, but even the very body itself: as if a man should say: This thing is my body. But we say, that of necessity that must be demonstrated & showed, which he having taken & broken, did deliver unto his disciples, to wit, bread: which thing also the apostle hath declared when he said: The bread which we break. 
1. Corinth. 10.16  Is it not the communicating of the body of Christ? And the word (rup) added in the other member or part of the institution of the supper, doth plainly prove to all men that are not utterly contentious, that this word (this) is as much, as if Christ should say this bread. And here I confess there is no trope at all, the reason is because it was needful for us to have the sign properly & fitly declared, that we might not be deceived. But our adversaries (among whom also a trope is almost as odious as an heresy) being demanded, 
ubiquitaries, or consubstantiators, and their opinions declared & confuted.  What answer they? Verily that under this Pronoune Hoc, that is, This, there is set out unto us, both the bread and the body also, that is to say, both the sign & the thing signified, 
Their opinion is contrary  being in very deed & essentially united together, as they say. 
To scripture,  But (as erewhile I said) 1 Paul useth the only word bread, and certain it is, that that was showed, which Christ took & broke. 
To the nature of Christ's body.  Shall 2 we say, that he took and broke his own body? certainly if they will so affirm, this real conjunction of the signs & the thing signified, 
To their own opinions.  shall 3 not depend upon the words of institution, seeing that even before that Christ took it and broke it, it was not bread only, but his body also. Wherefore they must of necessity confess, that these words: This is my body, & these again: This bread is my body, mean and signify all one thing: which not only all the ancient fathers do affirm, in innumerable places. 
Luther. Brentius.  but Luther in many places, and Brentius also, both in his book called Syntagma, and in his catechism likewise, 
Seluerieus. Eberus.  yea Seluericus & Eberus, do as it were in so many words testify also this truth. If yet notwithstanding they will have even the body united to the bread, to be showed out thereby. I answer they must of necessity then admit the trope or figure Synecdoche, and that therefore the institution of Christ, or the words of the institution, can not be understood without a trope or figure. 
He proveth the adversaries to fall into that which they dislike in others.  And what man that is in his right wits shall they persuade, that the word body can at one & the self same time be spoken of the bread & of the body without an other Synedoche also. And this you see what they have gained, who think it, and publish it in others to be a horrible heresy by a trope or figure to understand the words of the supper, whereas they themselves are enforced and found out, to make a double trope or figure. Now let us come to the word Est, 
The word Est, is expounded.  that is to say, Is. Seeing that whatsoever is, is not after one sort (for to be, hath place in all the predicaments) when these men from hence gather thus, or do after this sort expound these words. This bread is Christ's body, therefore it is essentially Christ's body, do they not I beseech you speak as if they should say: This is a living creature: therefore it is a man? And again, do they reason less fondly, when they gather thus: This bread is Christ's body, therefore this bread is Christ's body, not absent but present? Now, whereas they say, that the word body, because it is a substance, cannot be otherwise spoken or uttered, than substantially, I say they should have left this to the papists, who are therefore enforced to bring in their transubstantiation of the bread, because they say, that things sundered or separated one of them from another, could not be spoken one of another (& that therefore also this proposition was false, the bread is the body) except they granted either that the bread itself became nothing, or by changing were turned into a substance of another sort, to wit, 
ubiquitaries, in urging the ba●e letter, as absurd as Papists at the least.  the substance of his body. Therefore these men alone do keep or urge, & that most fondly, the bare word or letter. But these men of whom I now speak, though in outward show and speech, they refuse all tropes and figures, in the exposition of these words of the institution, do yet notwithstanding over and beside the two tropes above mentioned, that is to say, 
The adversaries by power of truth constrained to fall into three tropes in the exposition of a few words though otherwise the name be odious to them.  the figure Synecdoche diversly used in deed bring in an other, and that same very strange and wonderful: when they will have this speech: this bread is my body, to signify and mean as much, as if Christ should have said: my body is verily present, with, or in, or under this bread. Concerning which, this is my mind, that whosoever he is that useth this last form or manner of speaking doth not show, what the body itself is, but rather declareth where the body is, and therefore useth the word (is) not in the predicament of substance, but in the predicament of Site as they call it.  
Now I come to speak of that word Body. 
The word Body handled.  The thing that about this matter is laid unto our charge, 
The adversaries charge.  is this, that instead of the true body of Christ, delivered to death for us, we substitute and place, I can not tell what typical or figurative, or as it pleaseth them to call it, fantastical body, when we affirm that the body is spoken of the bread, not that the bread is the very body itself, but because it is as a sign and pledge of that true body of his, which was given for us.  

The answer thereto.  But is this to ascribe unto Christ, a feigned body, as these men slander us? Or is it not rather rightly to declare and show in what sense, that true and only body may be said or spoken of the bread, to wit, not as it is bread, but in as much as it is a sacrament of that his body? Therefore all these interpretations following, which that stinking slanderer Illyricus tosseth too and fro, 
Illyricus and his slanders.  as if they were contrary one of them to an other, that is to say: This bread sacramentally signifieth, or sacramentally is Christ's body: or again: This bread is the sacrament of Christ's body, do in deed and truth, and altogether express but one and the self-same judgement and matter.  
Now that the word body is in many places used, by all the old right believing writers, for the very sign of the body, 
All the ancient Fathers use the word body, for the sign of the body.  our adversaries must of necessity whether they will or no, confess, sith that they fear not to affirm, that Christ's body is made, broken, consumed, and why should it not be so likewise, when it is said, to enter into the mouth? To be short, what strife and stubbornness is this of theirs? They dare not deny the bread to be the sacrament of Christ's body: and why then will they not allow of this interpretation? Hear is the reason forsooth, because they would have it called the Sacrament of the body present.  
Then the controversy shall not be, 
The state of the controversy or question, is not about the interpretation of the words of institution, but about the presence of Christ's body.  yet touching the interpretation and meaning of these words of the institution, in which there is no mention at all, neither of presence nor absence, but herein only shall they consist, whether that body (of which that bread is said to be the Sacrament) be absent or present: which controversy, I can not so much as suppose how these men should determine out of these words This is my body.  

The second part of the Lords supper, to wit, the institution of the cup, and what is meant thereby.  Hitherto we have spoken of the first part of the Lords supper, to wit, the bread: but now let us come to the other part, to wit, the cup. But tell us (I pray you) what we must understand by the word cup? Verily, by their confession, even that which is contained in the cup, that is to say, the wine, and yet over and beside that, the blood of Christ, as they will needs have it. The former of these I grant, to wit, that by the cup should be meant, the wine contained in the cup: but the latter I deny, to wit, that that wine should be in substance the very blood of Christ, and this I do deny standing upon the reasons, which I have before spoken and alleged. But howsoever it be, whether there be meant thereby this wine alone, or together with the wine, even the blood itself: yet needs must these deadly enemies of tropes and figures acknowledge one figure here, to wit, a Metonomia, of the thing containing for the thing contained, yea, and that same very trope of the same figure Synecdoche, (which we have spoken of before) whereby it cometh to pass, that the wine and the blood are said to be the blood.  
Now then let them tell me how, 
See for the proof of this Genesis 17.9.  without a crope or figure, that shall be counted the covenant itself, by means whereof, the covenant is established? And yet this further I would gladly demand of them, if the bare word or letter being so precisely observed, that real consubstantiation must of necessity ensue, how it can be that this should not follow likewise, that the signs being not only distincted, but in very deed and truth separated and sundered also the body itself should not likewise in deed be separated and sundered from the blood? 
Consubstantiation erroneous, and all that is objected for i● most weak.  I many times thinking, and that earnestly of this one matter, to wit, why divers did so greatly urge this same rule Consubstantiation, even as if it were the principal point of all our religion: of a truth, nothing could come into my mind but that which was most easy to be confuted. As for the that they say, 
An objection.  that unless Christ's very body and his very blood be believed to be so present, that it may be received with the hands and with the mouth, or else the bread and the wine, shall be but empty and void signs, I say it is of no force. In good sooth, suppose ye that ye speak the truth? Belike than all the sacraments that the Fathers had, 
The answer ●●ken from an absurdity.  before that Christ's flesh was indeed created were void, and of no force. Their Sacraments (saith Augustine) were in signs divers, but in matter equal. But in what matter were they equal? Even in Christ, the only matter of the sacraments: for that same spiritual word, that is, (as the self-same writer upon the 77. 
August. in psa. 77  psalm expoundeth it) signifying some spiritual thing, was Christ; & they did eat the same meat that we eat, 
1. Corint. 10.2.3.  and did drink the same drink, to wit, Christ that was to be born, as we eat and drink Christ already borne, who is a spiritual meat and drink. How untrue therefore is it that the signs are of no force, except the thing signified, being in deed also present be coupled and joined with the sign? 
2 A second reason, standing upon comparison of the element of baptism, with the elements of the supper.  Yea shall we say, that the water of Baptism, is an idle sign? & yet I never hard of any man that would say, that the blood of Christ was indeed consubstantiated together with the wine. But against this they reply saying: the reason or cause of that is, because the Lord said not, that that water was his blood. Let us grant that, and yet in the mean while we have gained this, that the sacrament is not abolished, or made of no force, though the sign be in one place, and the thing signified thereby be in an other, so that both of them be truly offered and given. And this much, or hitherto have we spoken of this third point, that is to say, of the sacramental conjunction or joining of the sign with the thing signified.  
Now the sum of this true and right believing judgement is this, to wit, 
The sum of that which hath been said, touching the sacramental conjunction of the sig● and the thing signified.  that that is a sacramental conjunction, whereby it cometh to pass, that through god's ordinance, that which is signified by the signs used, though now it be never so far from us (I mean Christ himself, as in respect of his flesh) is yet notwithstanding, through the power of the holy ghost, but yet in such a spiritual sort and manner, as we shall declare hereafter, as truly and verily offered unto us, and given us, to be enjoyed of us as verily as the signs themselves are looked upon with the eyes, touched with the hands and received and perceived also with the mouth.  
But let us now come at the length, 
The fourth or last part of this discourse.  to the fourth or last question and points, to wit, what manner of taking or receiving there is, both of the signs themselves, and of the thing signified. Concerning the taking or receiving of the signs, there is no controversy or doubt made of it, 
A syllogism.  but that it is natural and outward, because it is manifestly and plainly performed of all them that come unto it, by bodily instruments and means. 
The mayor.  But as for the things signified, to wit, that very flesh of Christ, and that very blood of his, they are so received and taken, even as they are present and offered. 
The minor.  But they are present and offered also, to our mind and faith, because they are now (as we have said) not on earth, 
The conclusion.  but in heaven: and therefore they can not be taken or received otherwise than by our minds and faith. 
Augustine.  Augustine also speaking well and rightly touching this point, after this manner: Why preporest thou thy mouth and belly? This food belongeth not to the belly, but to the mind: Believe and thou hast eaten: Whereupon also this likewise followeth, that all that come to the lords table (as the same Augustine saith) receive the body of the lord, 
Augustine.  that is to say, the sacrament of the lords body, to wit, the bread used at may be one, even as thou and I are one  
And in one word, as you would say to finish the matter: if only the members of Christ are to be saved, than they must needs confess, that we are thorough faith truly grafted into Christ, and that even before we come to the supper: in so much as, no man can rightly and orderly come to the supper, which is not now already, both in baptism, and in the word, 
That followeth not, that the adversaries fantasy.  become a member of Christ, and therefore is united with Christ himself. And yet it doth not hereupon follow, that the institution of the Supper is superfluous, by which we do not indeed at the first push, but yet notwithstanding in process of time, do grow up more and more in Christ. For him that we do already possess, must we yet still daily seek: and the more in number or strength that the objects of our faith, so much the more meet is, that that mean measure of faith that we have, being stirred up in us, it should become so much the more effectual and powerful.  
For else what do these men gather which we may not, even from the very first institution and celebration of the Lords supper, as safely collect against the repetition or often administration of the same? 
A reason of the assertion.  For certainly if we conclude, that the Lords supper is therefore superfluous, because we receive nothing therein, but that which we received before, in the word and baptism, than this also will follow thereupon, that it is altogether unprofitable, to repair the second or third time to the Lords supper, seeing that he that cometh thither the second or sundry times, receiveth nothing more than that very self-same thing, which before he had laid hold of and received, than when he came first thereto. 
The second objection, with the answer thereto.  But they say, there is given to all that come thither, not bread alone, but that bread which is the sacrament: otherwise Christ's words should be frustrate saying: This is my body. I grant all this, and yet I deny the consequence. Both things, that is, the sign, and the thing signified, 
As man standeth of two parts: so accordingly two things are offered in the supper.  is given or offered to all: therefore all receive both. This hangeth not together: for two things are offered, one to the body, the other to the mind: the one is to be taken hold of by the mean of the body, either to life or to death: the other is to be apprehended by faith, and yet but to life only. Is it any marvel then that two things being to be received by several instruments and means, though perhaps they be both offered in one action, as they say, the one of them should be received, by every one that bringeth the common instrument of the body: and the other apprehended but of them alone that bring with them that same spiritual and only fit instrument to apprehend Christ by? No verily. And yet here again I pray you mark, how great the strength of truth is.  
Those that contend so stiffly, and that also without any profit to the church about unworthy communicants (for to what end should we travail so much about them? 
A distinction void of reason and religion. ) Do notwithstanding distinguish, between such unworthy persons as live not christianly enough, or otherwise are not sufficiently prepared for receiving of the supper (yet so as they fear not to affirm, that even they also eat Christ's flesh, though it be to their destruction unless they repent) and such as are altogether the wicked and unbelievers, who receive nothing but the bare signs.  
But if that same real Consubstantiation which they fantasy be true, than this will ensue thereupon, that not only all reasonable creatures without exception, receiving the signs, but the very beasts (let there be reverence in hearing this that I now say, 
A wary, but yet withal, a most necessary caution.  and let not any man take it, as though I spoke blasphemously) eating that bread and drinking that wine, shall have received also the flesh and the blood of Christ. 
An objection answered.  But they except further against this truth, that the unworthy are said to be guilty of the lords body and blood. We grant that too, Is it because they did unworthily receive the body and blood? 
1. Corinth. 11.27  No in deed: But because they did eat unworthily of that bread, and drink unwoorthilye of that cup: 
1. Cor. 11.28, 29.  or, because they discerned not the lords body, for that same unworthy using and receiving of the holy signs or pledges redoundeth unto the contempt of the thing signified and offered, 
A fit similitude.  even as he may justly be accounted guilty of some crime: yea, of treason if you will against the Emperors Majesty, that in contempt or reprochfullye doth violate the emperors picture or image. We see then, that the wicked are become guilty of the body and blood of Christ, not that they have received them (unless a man will take the body for the sign of the body, which is oftentimes used in the ancient Fathers) but because they have thorough their unbelief rejected or refused them. For Christ himself can never be sundered from that his quickening power, 
Christ and his graces are never sundered.  wherefore look of whom soever he is received (now indeed he is received only of the believers) they must of necessity be delivered from eternal death, 
john. 5.24.  as he himself plainly beareth witness.  
Now whereas these men except against this truth, 
An objection shortly answered.  that christ is delivered to some for judgement, and that thorough the very fault of the hearers. We grant that also, but yet so, & in respect as Christ is thorough their unbelief refused, and cast from them, and not received of them by faith.  
Lastly, whereas these men suppose, 
The last objection, with the answer thereto.  that Christ himself can not be truly partaken, unless he be indeed apprehended both by the hands and mouth also, 
The last objection, with the answer thereto.  and that therefore we hold a communicating not of Christ himself, but of his efficacy and power, let us a little consider this falsehood, and weigh this slander. First therefore we must know, that when we remove a bodily eating, that so we may establish a spiritual and mystical eating: that both these must be understood not of the thing itself which is communicated or partaken, but of the manner of communicating or partaking. For neither did Christ himself say: 
Luke 22.19.  This is the merit or benefit of my death: but this is that my body, which is given for you: neither do we suppose, that Christ himself can be less unskilfully separated from his efficacy, 
A similitude.  when the question is of Spiritual nourishment, than if a man would deny, that we had need to eat bread itself, and drink wine itself, that so afterwards we might draw or fetch bodily nourishment from the same.  
But we say and affirm, that this manner of communicating or partaking, is not bodily, neither yet that it can be performed by bodily instruments, or means, but altogether spiritual and mystical, as which is performed by faith alone, which faith embraceth that matter, 
Faith alone embraceth the words and sacraments & all the graces offered us therein.  that is offered unto us in the word and sacraments. But if they will deny that this can be performed, because of such a great distance of places, let them then cease at the last to accuse us of ungodliness, as though we would either deny Gods almighty power, or give sentence touching this mystery, by the rules of worldly philosophy. And yet we will not deny, but that this objection may then have some place, 
If absurdities or errors be yielded unto, than they will be infinite, & no measure of them.  if by communicating or partaking we understand a real applying or mixture of Christ's body with ours, whether it be of the whole with the whole, or of the parts with the parts, that so the church might in deed be a body, as it were soldered and glued together of innumerable bodies of believers, being indeed melted together as it were with Christ's body. But fie upon this monster, and let us learn always to drive it far from us: for who perceiveth not that the body arising or flowing from this fellowship or communicating and belonging altogether to a spiritual life, is mystical? Wherefore we are truly, but yet after a spiritual sort and mystically, become one with Christ himself through faith, that so from him there may flow into us true life. 
A similitude.  And even as these our members being naturally joined with the soul, do receive from it sense and moving: so should we after a spiritual and undeclarable manner (for great is the mystery of that spiritual marriage, that is between Christ and his church, 
Ephes. 5.32.  as the apostle largely and loudly declareth) live in Christ, being led and governed by his spirit, and he again manifest and declare his powerful working in us. Now tell me, is this the abolishing of that partaking that we have with Christ himself, or do we not rather make it a divine and heavenly partaking? But if with these men we would make it a communicating with the mouth, than this partaking or communicating should be no wonderful or excellent matter. 
We cannot approve of a bodily communicating or partaking with the mouth, because that were to spoil our faith, and rob God of his almighty power & truth.  For what I pray you is more natural and usual, than if any thing that is in deed present, be delivered us to eat, we take it in our hands, and swallow it down thorough our mouth? But that we, though as now poor wretches we be placed on the earth, & not else where, should notwithstanding, truly and in deed become the very members of the flesh and blood of Christ himself, who now according to his flesh remaineth in heaven, and no where else, and should fetch from thence the very juice in deed of eternal life, notwithstanding that wonderful great distance of place that is between him and us, this I say passeth all man's understanding, and is a most evident testimony both of God's truth, and also of his almighty power.  
And let this suffice also for answer to these slanderers, who cry out, that we transform this holy mystery into an imaginary ghost or conceit, in that we do attribute all this wholly to our minds & faith: 
If the adversaries conclusion be true, then there will ensue thereupon two gross errors.  for if they do truly conclude this against us, what remaineth then but that we affirm likewise the baptism of christians to be a certain vain fantasy or apparition, and their salvation also to be in imagination, and not in truth, 
Two similitudes containing in them arguments from the less to the more.  who die before they can come to be present at, or partakers of the Lords supper? Now if natural understanding itself and apprehension be so powerful and effectual, that we being holpen by these faculties become skilful in so many things, shall not faith that excellent gift of the Holy ghost, work this in us, that we shall through faith truly and in deed apprehend & take hold of that very thing, which God offereth us, to be received by faith, though it be never so far removed from us? And sith by the heat of the sun, though it be never so far distant from us, the whole world is after a sort quickened and made lively and strong, shall not Christ be able, though his flesh and his blood remain in heaven, so to become in deed our mystical head, that he may power into us the juice of eternal life? 
The conclusion of all.  But of these matters we have spoken thus far. My purpose was (brethren) largely to discourse of these points, because of the slanders of certain ilwillers, that so by this means, the true and sound doctrine of our churches, being made known, none of them that repair to this church should refuse our assemblies, specially the holy supper which we mind God willing, within few days to administer, but rather that we should every one of us religiously celebrate this holy banquet, earnestly entreating the Lord to restrain troublesome spirits, to confirm right believers, 
A godly prayer.  and (to be short) to grant us all this grace, that being of one mind in him, we may in this world lead an innocent and unblamable life, and at the last be received into eternal life and blessedness, by our Lord jesus Christ: to whom with the Father, and the Holy ghost, be all praise, and glory for ever and ever: So be it.   

A SHORT SUM OF sound doctrine, touching the matter of the Sacrament of the Lords supper.  
We have to consider in Christ our only Mediator, 
Four things to be specially regarded in Christ,  especially four things, that is to say: 

1 Christ's person.  
2 His office.  
3 The gift 〈◊〉 graces which we receive from him.  
4 lastly, by what means we are made partakers of those gifts.    

1 Concerning Christ's person.  

Christ consisting of two natures, is yet but one person.  WE teach & affirm, that Christ doth consist of two natures, the one the nature of God, the other the nature of man, making yet notwithstanding but one person of both natures: and that so also as the proprieties both in the nature of God, and also of man, remain safe and sound, and are rightly distinguished one of them from another. 
Wherein the glorification of Christ's body standeth.  And though we confess the man's nature of Christ to be glorified, and that in the chiefest degree one, and that no less truly and straitly than the members are joined to a natural body, but yet in that manner, and after that sort, which we will hereafter declare. Neither do they please, satisfy, or content us, wherefore this our joining with Christ unto that great mystery of his incarnation: for this is a general communicating or partaking of his nature with ours: but here we entreat of a particular or peculiar conjunction, by which it cometh to pass, 
Ephes. 4.13.  that his church and congregation groweth up together with him. And we affirm this conjunction and joining of us together, to be the wellspring of all the benefits which afterwards are conveyed over from Christ unto us: 
Matth. 3.17. john. 17.11.  for seeing that the father is well pleased in him alone, it is meet that we be truly made one with him, that in him also we may please the father. Hence then ensueth another sort of gifts and graces, that is to say, 
Christ and his graces cannot be sundered.  such as when we have Christ given us, are then in and with him also bestowed upon us. 
Two sorts of graces in Christ.  Of which there are likewise two special sorts: First, the imputation or accounting unto us of Christ's holiness, righteousness, & obedience, that so in him we may be the righteousness of God, through the forgiveness of our sins. secondly a spiritual life itself, flowing unto us his members, from the flesh of Christ God and man, by the force and power whereof we are new borne, and nourished into everlasting life, even as by meat and drink this frail life is fostered and maintained in us.   

4 How Christ together with his gifts and graces may be received of us.  
THat we receive Christ together with all his gifts and graces, 
What the Holy ghost is.  this must be attributed, as we freely confess, to the free working of the Holy spirit alone, which is the essential power of the father and the son: 
1. Cor. 2.13.14.  for he alone maketh us meet to understand these things which are of God, yea and that in such sort, that we do not only confess all God's promises generally to be true, 
What faith is.  but also every one of us in our hearts do certainly persuade ourselves that these promises do belong unto us, 
Rom. 8.15. Galath. 4.6.  and therefore may with boldness cry Abba, O father. This same most excellent work of the Holy ghost we call faith, 
Ephes. 2.8.  which is the free gift of GOD, allotted specially to the elect, and is as in respect of us, the only fit and meet instrument to perceive Christ by, and to receive all his graces. Therefore we teach with Paul, 
Rom. 3.28.  that we are justified and saved by faith alone: we meaning thereby nothing else but this, that by that only instrument of faith, we lay hold upon all things necessary to salvation, to wit, Christ with all his gifts. Furthermore, the Holy ghost, to the end that this faith may be begotten in us by his secret power, as also for the fostering and strengthening thereof, after that it is wrought, doth use likewise outward means (because we consist of a rude and gross nature) to wit, the word written and preached, 
The outward means of faith.  which he by his power maketh effectual in us, that so he may work in us these things of which we have before spoken. 
The word considered two ways, to wit, as it is preached without the sacraments, and as the sacraments are annexed thereto.  And this word sometime is simple, and by itself or alone, as you would say, not accompanied with other, of which sort is the daily preaching of the same word. And sometimes again it hath visible signs joined to it, together with certain ceremonies: which signs the Greeks call mysteries, and the Latins sacraments: for God verily regarding our weakness, went to assure us of that his goodwill towards us, not by the ears only, but also by other senses, and so more and more to establish and seal unto us our conjunction with Christ his son. These things being put down, and these groundworks and fountions laid, it shallbe an easy matter to gather our mind touching the questions following, which respect or concern the matter of the sacrament.  
Q 1 Wherefore and to what purpose are sacraments ordained?  

Sacraments ordained to three ends.  A First, that we might so much the more effectually possess Christ himself. secondly, that look how much the more straight our growing up with Christ himself is, so much more and more should that life of Christ be derived and conveyed over unto us, with other his gifts and graces. thirdly, that we might so much the more effectually remember, that holy love, which ought to be of force amongst such as are members of the same body, and to which love we by solemn protestation bind ourselves as it were.  
Q 2 From whence floweth that force of the sacraments?  
A Wholly and altogether from the working of the Holy ghust, 
The force of the sacraments is from the Holy ghost only.  and not from the signs, otherwise than as by these outward objects, the inward senses are moved. And the Holy ghost using those means & aids for our infirmities sake, doth make these motions effectual and powerful, in what measure, and at what time soever it pleaseth him.  
Q 3 Which is the formal cause of the sacraments?  
A The ordinance of God contained in his word, 
The formal cause of the sacraments.  and set out or declared by his minister, according to his commandment, and not the bare pronunciation of those same words, nor any force lying hid in the words themselves.  
Q 4 What is the power of this formal cause?  
A That the signs not in their very nature or substance, 
The elements are changed i● the sacrament, but that is in respect of use only, and not of substance.  but as in respect of their use only should be changed, & that so long as the action whereunto they serve, is of force or in hand. For in the holy mysteries we esteem not water, as water simply, or bread as bread alone, or wine as wine only, but as certain signs, and true pledges of those things which the Lord, though in another manner in deed (as we shall by and by declare) yet notwithstanding most certainly and truly doth give unto us, that is to say, of Christ himself, with all his gifts and graces.  

The matter of the sacraments is two fold.  Q 5 What is the matter of the sacraments?  

The outward matter are the elements.  A The outward matter we count the signs themselves, to wit, water in baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's supper, together with the ceremonies ordained by Christ, as his word testifieth, which also themselves do truly signify matters of great weight, and altogether heavenly. We have already often times said, 
Christ and his graces are the inward matter.  that not that only is termed of us, the inward matter, or matter itself of the sacrament, whatsoever is derived to us from Christ, but principally Christ himself, with whom it is meet that we be made one, before we can draw or fetch any thing from him. 
Baptism what it signifieth.  And in deed in baptism there is set out unto us the true and very blood of the Lord, as a laver or fountain, with which blood being washed, we are more and more engrafted into Christ, and buried with him. 
The supper what it signifieth.  And in the supper, the body and blood of the same Christ is given to us, and that in several signs, as our true meat, and true drink into life everlasting. 
Christ offered in the word and in the sacraments, but yet in two respects more lively & plainly in the sacraments.  There is then one inward matter of the word alone, or by itself, and the sacraments also, annected thereto, that is to say, Christ himself, with all his benefits, to the partaking whereof we are called. But notwithstanding some difference there is, to wit, according to more and less, as they usually say in schools. First, 
The first difference.  because that when the sacraments are joined to the simple word or word alone, than it necessarily followeth, that there is a more plentiful declaration of God's good will towards us, and look by how much there are more objects in number, and they likewise more evident, by so much the more vehemently or earnestly they do move and stir us up, or at leastwise ought so to do. secondly, 
The second difference.  because although the word alone propounded generally unto all, be afterwards by the power of faith, applied unto every particular faithful person: yet this is not there so plainly and particularly expressed, as in the sacraments in which Christ is verily offered particularly and severally to every one: whereby it cometh to pass that every particular believer is after a certain manner put into the possession of Christ himself.  
Q 6 How is the matter joined with the signs?  

The signs and the things signified are joined sacramentally.  A By a sacramental manner which seeing it is proper & peculiar to them alone, must be declared by a proper definition, & such a one as is fit for that purpose, we therefore define or determine, that the sacramental manner of joining the matter with the signs, 
Why it is called a spiritual conjunction.  is spiritual: by which epitheton or word, we conceive no imagined or feigned thing, but principally mean that it specially dependeth of the power of the Holy ghost, as we have already said in the declaration of the formal cause. Moreover, by that means we shut out all gross and natural manner of joining: 
A similitude.  for as we know that the signs are upon earth, & not else where, which thing also no man can or will deny: so also we hold and conclude, that the matter itself, that is to say, Christ himself, according to his flesh, is contained in heaven, and not in any other place, as we gather out of the Scriptures, 
Luke 24.51. Acts 3.21. Roman. 8.34. Coloss. 3.1.  and all the Fathers of right faith and sound judgement. And yet we doubt not but that the signs are joined with the matter, that is to say, in that respect, or so far forth as God, doth not only, as it were a far off show, the signs of the body and blood of Christ: but beside the very signs, doth also truly give unto us Christ himself, to be enjoyed and possessed of us. Whereby also it cometh to pass, that in this respect above mentioned, these things may be truly said to be joined together, although by spaces of places they are separated far and wide asunder. Notwithstanding we hold, that this conjunction is true and certain, 
The sacramental conjunction is true and sure.  in so much as, that therefore the name of the thing itself, that is, I say, the body and blood is indeed figuratively, but yet very significantly and plainly given to the very signs, to wit, unto the bread and the wine. Secondly, to the end we may more fully declare this sacramental manner of joining the matter with the sign, we add, that it is significative, not as though God did only signify unto us in the Sacraments, 
What is called a significative conjunction.  the body and blood of his Son, and also his Son himself (for no doubt but that also he doth truly give him unto us) but we do it to this end, lest any man should think the matter to be so coupled with the signs, that Christ's flesh also should now be present in earth, though it were after a certain invisible and incomprehensible manner. We say therefore, that Christ's body and blood, is by so great a space absent from the signs, even as the earth itself, 
Curiosity to be avoided, specially in things we are not skilled in.  is distant from the most high Heavens, or from the seat of the blessed (touching which we mind not at any time over curiously to dispute or discourse) and into which we know and believe that Christ ascended, that so in all our behalfs, and for us indeed, he might obtain and get that same immortal inheritance. Notwithstanding we separate not the thing from the signs, either as in respect of God, who truly offereth both the one and the other, 
Things must be so joined that neither they nor other must be confounded or jumbled together.  or as in respect of the faithful, who truly and indeed receive both. But we note the difference of place in the conjunction of the thing, and the signs, that the truth of Christ's flesh, and of his ascension, may be preserved safe and sound: neither yet do we for all that, by any means make void the Lords supper itself.  
Q 7 What is to be thought of these manner of speeches: The body of the Lord is in, or with, or under the bread, or nigh unto the bread, and of all, or any other that be of the like sort?  
A As yet we fear to use these, or such like manner of speeches, because they seem to take away the distance of places, 
Two causes why these kinds of speeches are not to be allowed.  which we necessarily establish and allow: or else they uphold the ubiquity of Christ's body, which we may not grant at any hand, although we confess, that besides the signs, the thing itself is offered us of GOD, and by the faithful truly received, but after that manner which we will declare in the tenth question. Notwithstanding it should seem, 
A christian yielding, for peace sake, but yet with good cautions and exceptions.  that these terms (which are under) for concords sake may be admitted, but not unless a plain and manifest interpretation be joined withal: to wit, that these particles are so to be understood, not as though Christ's flesh should be placed upon earth, but that we may know, that besides the signs themselves which are upon the earth, Christ himself which is in heaven, is truly given unto us, as the signs on earth do bear witness.  
Q 8 What ought we to judge of this manner of saying, Christ is present in the supper, corporally, really, substantially?  
A For the self-same cause before alleged, we do not use these forms of speech neither: 
Hard speeches with some qualifications and interpretations may be tolerated for a time.  notwithstanding it should seem, that they also might be tolerated or borne withal, so that we add the interpretation following, to wit, that these things do not pertain to that manner of conjunction, whereby the thing is joined with the signs, but serve rather to express and declare the matter itself, that is to say, that so we may understand, that by the action of the supper, there is established and confirmed in us, not only the virtue and power of Christ, but chief, our very growing up with christ himself, from which we have affirmed the same to flow, 
This is the law of righteousness; to have that done to ourselves that we would do to others.  even as it were, from a fountain, because afterwards we fetch from him, both true life, and also all things necessary to salvation. Neither would I judge it to be refused, that a like interpretation may again be joined to this our manner of speaking, that Christ is spiritually in the supper, lest any man should think that we separate Christ's power from the very flesh of Christ, or imagine unto him a special body.  
Q 9 What is to be judged of this manner of saying: That Christ is present in the supper, and is distributed also, by an incomprehensible manner, or after a sort, that can not be understood?  
A We use this manner of speech, but yet in a far other sense and meaning than some are wont. 
A corrupt interpretation.  For (unless peradventure we be deceived) they seem to take this saying after this sort, as though by a certain divine and heavenly power, by reason also of the personal union of the flesh with the godhead Christ's flesh should be really at one time and together, both in heaven and in earth. But, though we neither deny the omnipotency of GOD: neither the true conjunction of the thing, 
A true interpretation.  with the signs, and of the faithful with Christ himself, we do yet notwithstanding, by reason of the truth of Christ's flesh, and his ascension likewise plainly affirm that the body of Christ is now verily absent from the world, 
Acts 3.21.  & shall remain absent until he come to judge the quick and the dead. Nevertheless we confess, this mystery of god to be incomprehensible & beyond our understanding: 
Faith joineth things together that be as far asunder as heaven and earth.  whereby it falleth out, that that which is, and remaineth in heaven, & not elsewhere, that so we may draw life and salvation from him, who is truly offered unto us, and in deed communicated of us. For albeit we know, first, that the holyghost, that is to say, god's power doth work this, 
The power of the spirit, and of the force of faith.  and then that as in regard of ourselves, all this is to be received of us, by the only instrument or mean of faith: yet the power of the spirit, and the force of faith, do exceed all our understanding: whereby it cometh to pass also, that even this whole action is very properly called, a mystery or secret, as the Greeks used to term it.  
Q 10 How is the matter or thing of the Sacrament communicated or partaken of us?  
A The matter of the Sacrament, that is to say, Christ himself, is received of us, by a spiritual manner, thorough faith. And we call that a Spiritual manner of receiving or communicating, 
Spiritual receiving what it is.  not only in which Christ his spirit is communicated with us, but also, that which is not earthly or natural, but dependeth of the incomprehensible power of the holyghost, by which most strait bond indeed the members are more and more joined with their head. For we exclude and shut out, all pouring abroad and mingling of substances, and also all fitness of joining together of natural parts, and yet can hold and main●●ine a true growing up of the faithful with Christ, which can not be hindered by any distance of places: for our faith cleaveth unto the word of God, who indeed performeth that which he promiseth.  
Q 11 In what sense are these speeches (To eat the Lords body, and to drink his blood, and other such like) to be admitted?  
A We say, 
Eating and drinking referred to Christ's body and blood must be figuratively understood.  that these manner of speeches do also belong to that communicating or partaking, whereby we lay hold of Christ, even in the simple word, or in the word itself alone: yea, we affirm, that they are very effectual and significant, but so, that the words of eating and drinking, when they are spoken of the taking of the body and blood of Christ, are no less figuratively to be understood, than if a man should attribute to faith a mouth and teeth. 
Two causes why the holy-ghost useth borrowed speeches. The first.  Now we allege two chief causes why the holy-ghost speaketh after that manner: one cause is, that he may show, how straight our conjunction with christ is, by the means of faith: for nothing more groweth up and increaseth with us, than meat and drink, without which no man ca●●●asse over his time, or spend this life: ●he other cause (which also properly hath place in the Sacraments) is, 
The second.  that by this way and means it may be declared, how true the Lord is in delivering the matter itself, which he promiseth by signs, as it were, by certain pledges given: for thereby it cometh to pass, that though the only signs are taken with the hand, and received with the mouth, yet that also which beside the signs, is truly offered, and by faith only spiritually received, is said to be taken, eaten, drunken, &c: And for this cause we acknowledge, 
Why we use not the father's phrases in the ●upper.  that the holy Fathers have used many other forms of speaking, not unlike these, which we notwithstanding will not at this day heedelesly use, but suppose rather, that the same are to be mitigated by some profitable and fit interpretations, and the rather, because of many errors spread abroad by Satan, and many controversies also by this occasion stirred up in the church of God.  
Q 12 How are these words: This is my body, and this is my blood, to be expounded?  
A Even after this manner: This, 
The words of the institution expounded particularly, and, as it were, one after an other.  that is to say, this bread & this wine, is, to wit, sacramentally for not whatsoever is any thing, is by one only way a thing. Now the question is here, concerning the Sacraments. And we plainly say sacramentally, because the Lord did indeed offer, not bare bread● and wine only, but the true signs of his body and blood, neither only these signs, but besides them also, his body and blood to be enjoyed & possessed of us, even into everlasting life, which life everlasting also we draw from him being communicated unto us. 
Luke 22.19, 20.  My body and my blood, that is, not an imagined body or feigned blood, but that self-same body which was given for us, and that self-same blood which was shed for us, of both which we are indeed by faith made partakers, as the signs do truly witness.  
Q 13 What do the wicked or unbelievers receive?  

The institution of the supper dependeth upon God's truth.  A We hold and teach, & that by an agreeing judgement and holy consent, that the institution of the sacrament doth hang upon the truth of God, & therefore that in the very action of the Lords supper rightly administered, the bread is always a true sign of the Lords body, and the wine a true sign of the Lords blood, to whomsoever they be offered or given. 
A bad conclusion justly reverted and cast upon the adversaries themselves.  Now, whereas some would thereupon gather and infer, that all do receive the whole sacrament, we can at no hand grant it, for this consequence or reason is not of force. God doth offer it to all, therefore all receive it. But rather on the contrary side, we gather and reason thus: God doth in the Sacrament offer two things, and that indeed as verily and trullie the one, as the other, but both are to be received by means and instruments altogether divers and different: that is to say, the outward signs are to be received bodily, and the thing itself spiritually by faith. Therefore because every man bringeth his mouth, 
The reason why some receive worthily, other some unworthily.  all receive the outward signs, some indeed worthily, and othersome unworthily: but because the faithful & believers only bring the mouth of faith, therefore the faith all only receive the matter itself, & therefore also life everlasting. And the unbelievers eat and drink judgement to themselves, because they discern not, that is to say, 
1. Corinth. 11. 2●  despise and reject the Lords body offered them, neither have they any regard thereof. Wherefore this their condemnation proceedeth not, of the body and blood of the Lord unworthily received (for seeing that they are not received but by faith, they are never received unworthily, neither can they indeed be otherwise than lively and quickening things) but of the body and blood of the Lord, 
From whence the condemnation of the wicked floweth, in that they do unworthily eat at the Lords table.  therefore contemned and rejected, because in this action, neither the bread should be duly considered as bread, but as a pledge of the lords body, nor the wine regarded only as the wine, but as a sure pledge of the lords blood. Therefore hence it cometh to pass, 
To receive without faith, i● to receive unworthily.  that whosoever he be that receiveth this bread and wine unworthily, that is to say, without faith, doth despise, not the bread, and the wine, but the body & blood of the Lord in those pledges, & is therefore guilty of the body & blood of the Lord, 
A reason why all receive not Christ in the supper.  which he received not, but which he had in consideration or due regard of for Christ doth not ●●icken or cause to live, all them to whom he is offered, whether this be done in the word alone, or in the sacraments, but he doth indeed quicken all them of whom he is received, because he cannot be received of any other but of the faithful only & as for those of whom he is despised, he doth judge them all, 
Two sayings of the ancient fathers very charitably interpreted.  so far off is it, that he is of them received. Notwithstanding, for some of the father's sakes, & the reverence we carry them, me think that this saying (the body of Christ is of every one received) might be born withal: & this also, that of the faithful it is received worthily to life, & of the unfaithful unworthily to judgement: but yet for all the, we must of necessity ad such an interpretation, as may show this thing to be true, that is, so far forth, as the name of the thing signified, that is, of the body, is transferred or attributed to the signs themselves: & so far forth also, as by this speech they may be properly or fitly showed forth, not what every one receiveth, but what the Lord of his own goodness offereth to every one.   

The conclusion. 
The conclusion, consisting first of a wish, which hath two parts.   
This is the sum of all those things, which are taught in our churches and congregations, concerning the matter of the sacrament, so far forth as I could ever observe, gather, or learn. And the thing we wish and desire is that, that men would so provide for the church's peace and quietness, that all manner of speeches not used in Scripture might be avoided, so far forth as could be. And again, that if for doctrines sake, or the teaching of others, any thing shall be thought good to be changed, that then all ambiguitte and doubtfulness might be removed and taken away. 
Secondly, of a promise, which also hath two parts.  But if any thing in this doctrine delivered can be showed or proved, not to be agreeable to God's word, we are ready, not only to be taught and instructed, but also to thank (as there is good cause) such as shall teach us, that so at the length we may wholly, and altogether think one thing in the Lord, which (GOD is our witness) we do with all our heart day and night earnestly desire of his merciful goodness.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

The substance of the Lords supper, shortly and soundly set forth, for the instruction and comfort of all true christian Readers.  
TO clear, yea, to void all the controversies, that from time to time have crept into the church of Christ, concerning the matter of the lords supper, these three circumstances are meet especially to be considered.  

1. Corinth. 11.23  1 First, who ordained it, to wit, jesus Christ our lord and saviour, which tendeth to two especial ends: first, to prove his eternal deity or godhead, because it belongeth to God alone, and none other, to institute and ordain holy signs and Sacraments in his church, whereof also it should seem there is very great and good reason, both in as much as the Church itself is, 
1. Timoth. 3.15.  the house of the living God, and his peculiar inheritance: and also because it belongeth to him alone, to give that virtue & strength unto elements of common and unclean by sin, to become purified and holy thorough grace: secondly, it seemeth to teach us, to have a more reverent regard to come to the sound knowledge and religious use thereof, not only because he being God, and the ordainer thereof, hath all power in his own hands, to punish the profane contemners and abusers of the same, but also because he, of whom we have that that we have, not only as in consideration of our name, Christian, but also as in respect of all other both spiritual and bodily graces, hath instituted the same for his own glory and our good.  
2 Secondly, 
Matth. 26.26.  we are to consider when it was instituted, to wit, before his death and suffering, and that immediately after he had with his disciples eaten the passover, by which we may see the Lord jesus had as great ear for us, as for the fathers, before his being and manifestation in the flesh: providing also thereby, not only for our forgetfulness, that we might have the continual remembrance of his death & passion before our eyes, 
1. Corint. 11.26.  until his coming again, but for our instruction also, this being plain to us, in that circumstance of time, that forasmuch as the bread was broken in the supper before his body was crucified on the cross, that bread could not be that same natural body, that was crucified on the cross, &c: as Papists grossly imagine and maintain, the reason is, because these things that differ in time, can not be said in all respects, yea, hardly in any respect to be the same.  
3 Thirdly, wherefore it was ordained, to wit, to strengthen our faith in the truth of God's promises, by which we may see, that we are dull and ●owe of heart to believe (whatsoever the Pelagians & the pride of our own minds would persuade us to the contrary) GOD providing for the curing of this disease in us, 
Luke 24 25.  not only his word preached, but visible signs and seals also by which though the outward senses may be satisfied, the Lord yet notwithstanding speaketh to our souls and consciences, the Lord likewise instituting the same, as effectual means to put us in remembrance, by reason of our forgetfulness of jesus Christ being absent, as also of his death and passion, and of the fruits and profits we reap thereby. Now a remembrance of a thing it could not be, if the thing itself were present. And all these three points are proved out of 1. Corinth. 11.23.24.  
In the second place, the deep and due consideration of these three circumstances following, will serve much for the cleared of this question also, touching the Lord's supper.  
1 First, which be the signs in the sacrament, to wit, the visible elements of bread and wine, which have that strength and force in them, not of themselves, & in their own nature, for then all bread and wine should have the like, neither yet because they be used by men in the administration and participation of the supper, for if that were true, many things than should have the like power and effect: but in respect of the Lords institution, who in deed hath dedicated and appointed them to those holy uses, and who alone hath power to ordain holy signs or sacraments, and to give them that effect & property, as hath been plainly declared before.  
2 secondly, what be the things signified thereby, to wit, the blessed body of Christ crucified, and his precious blood, shed for the benefit and good of all those, that by a lively and steadfast faith, do apprehend and take hold of him, and all his merits: for no doubt but it was the Lord's purpose, both in the elements and the use of the same, to direct our faith to these things in him, which in truth were in him, and which (such was his good pleasure towards us miserable wretches) should be set out unto us in the sacrament, otherwise the Lord jesus should have dallied with us, and that in matters of no small importance, from the which as we steadfastly believe, he was utterly free, so the least thought of such a conceit and dotage, should not so much as once enter into us.  
3 thirdly the analogy, proportion and agreement, which is between the signs, and the things signified, the Lord no doubt choosing such elements as might most aptly and fitly express the things signified and sealed by the same: for otherwise, if we had had bare signs alone, without holy things signified in and by the same, as our faith had no whit at all been provided for, because it being spiritual and inward, is not, nor cannot be nourished with outward and corporal things, so we might easily have been carried away into idolatry or superstition at the least, whilst we directed our imagination (for I dare not call it faith) to visible and external elements, or doted in our fantasy and understanding upon creatures, which what hurt it might have done, though we feel not by our own experience (God be thanked therefore) yet we may behold and see the same in the lamentable and pitiful spectacle of many blind and superstitious ones in the world.  
Now the analogy and proportion between the signs and the things signified in the Lord's supper, may easily be reduced and brought into three especial heads or points.  
1 First, that as verily as that bread is broken before our bodily eyes in the administration of the Lords supper, and the wine powered out, and diffused or spread abroad in the sight of us all, specially whilst that many are made partakers of the same, so verile do we or aught we by the eye of faith to behold Christ wounded for our transgressions, 
Isaiah. 53.5.  & broken for our iniquities, as Isaiah saith, and his blessed body crucified, and his blood shed upon the cross for many, 
Matth. 26.26, 27.28. 1. Cor. 11.24.25.26.  for the remission of sins, the one being no more certainly performed in bodily action and presence of the people than the other, is truly and faithfully accomplished in spirit & truth.  
2 secondly, that as bread hath this property, through God's blessing given it, to feed and strengthen our natural bodies in this life? 
Psal. 104.15.  so his body being represented effectually unto us by that bread, and apprehended & applied unto ourselves by faith, hath the self same property touching our souls, to strengthen and to nourish them spiritually, 
Psal. 104.15. judg. 9.13.  even to eternal life. And even as the wine doth comfort & make man's heart glad, as appeareth by sundry scriptures: so our full joy and spiritual comfort, is to be found in none other but in him alone. And (to join these two together, of which we have spoken severally) this we must know and believe further, that as our bodily diet is then full whole and perfect, as it were, when it consisteth of these two things, to wit, bread and wine or drink: so we are to know and believe, that the fullness and perfection of all spiritual nourishment, is to be found in Christ alone, and no where else, whilst that he is become, as well the drink as the meat of our soul, not only in this double sign helping our infirmity, but also teaching us to seek the heavenly refection and nourishment of our souls, fully and wholly in him, and no where else, whereunto also he himself in some sort alludeth. Matth. 11.28. 
john. 6 35. john. 7.37.38.  and in other places of scripture.  
3 thirdly, that even as in our knowledge, the bread appointed for the Lords supper, is made of many grains of corn, and the wine likewise itself of sundry and several grapes, and yet all maketh but one bread, & one wine: so all the faithful should be instructed thereby, that how soever they be several & distinct persons one of them from another, even as the several members in man's body are, that yet they all compacted together, make but one body in Christ, the only head thereof, 
Rom. 12.4.5. 1. Cor. 10.16.17.  as the apostle plainly proveth in sundry places of his epistles, by which also they are admonished to refer all that they do to the glory of their head and captain Christ, and to the mutual comfort and sustentation one of another.  
Out of all that hitherto hath been spoken or said, I would pray the godly and well affected reader, diligently to observe and note these three things following.  
1 First, that though it be most true, that even by the ministery of the Gospel preached, we have Christ with all his benefits offered unto us, and do by faith wrought in our hearts, by the ministery of the same word, and working of his spirit, take hold of him & all his graces, of which also S. Paul speaketh to the Galachians saying, 
Galath. 3.1.  that Christ was described in their sight, and crucified amongst them, that yet all this notwithstanding, we have him more plainly and plentifully set forth unto us in the use of the supper, whilst that we by faith feeding on him, that is the bread of life which came down from heaven, 
john. 6.51.  are by that means become bone of his bones, 
Ephes. 5.30.  and flesh of his flesh, and after a sort made one with him, 
john. 17.21.22.  even as the father and he are one: which I speak not to the debasing of the word, as though the sacraments were more worthy and excellent, or to the dividing of Christ, for as in respect of his substance, he is but one, both in the word and the sacraments, but as in respect of us, and for our weakness sake, we having more of our senses satisfied in and by the use of the elements of the Lords supper, as for example, our sight, our taste, our feeling, yea and our hearing also, whilst that in the delivery and partaking thereof, Christ's death is preached unto us, than we have in the word which is directed only to the ear or hearing.  
2 secondly, that this holy sacrament doth not only direct our faith to the death and passion of our saviour Christ, which was performed for us and all the faithful many hundred years agone, as the one, 
Hebr. 9.28. Hebr. 10.14.  and the only sacrifice for sin, never to be reiterated, because that thereby he being the only high priest and eternal sacrificer, hath consecrated for ever all them that are sanctified: but also, yea chiefly, and especially, to the gracious fruits and effects that we receive thereby, as the forgiveness of sins, our reconciliation to GOD, the death of iniquity in us, the assured pledge of eternal life, and such like: all which are lively set forth and preached unto us in the same, to the end that we may by faith in a strong persuasion of God's goodness towards us in Christ, be made partakers thereof. For otherwise, if we had but Christ's death only, and nothing else, it would be little available to us: for what would it have profited us that he had died, if by his death he had not brought life and immortality to light? 
2. Tim. 1.10.  but for as much as his death, and the effects and fruits following the same, and flowing from it, can not be sundered, we therefore steadfastly believe, that the faithful are never partakers of the one alone, but that also they are partakers of the other likewise.  
3 thirdly, that we must certainly know, and steadfastly believe that though this holy sacrament do specially and chiefly direct us to Christ, his death, merits, obedience, and the fruits thereof, yet notwithstanding also, it doth sensibly and plainly instruct us in the special duties of that sound and sincere love, which in Christ, and for Christ, we as the members of that body, whereof he is the only head, 
Ephes. 1.22. & 5.23.  ought unfeignedly to carry and accomplish one of us towards another, not only as profitable and necessary for the parties to whom such duties are performed, whilst in the days of their distress we relieve them by our wealth, or comfort and council them by our wit, which are things that God hath given us even to the same end, but comfortable also to ourselves, whilst by that as by a bag or cognizance we are known both to others and ourselves to be Christ's disciples in deed, 
john. 13.35.  and have sealed up in our hearts the free pardon, and full forgiveness of all our sins, 
Luke. 7.47. john. 3.14.  and an assured pledge also, that we are translated out of darkness into light, without the which all we have in this life, and therefore the sacraments also could tend but to our greater condemnation.  
In the third place, for the cleared of this controversy or question of the Lords supper, we must have a watchful eye to Satan's subtleties, who painfully laboureth in this point, as in all other points of Christian religion also, by extremities to draw us into all corruption. Now the extremities that in time heretofore have burst forth, and are yet even to this day, in many places, stoutly and stiffly maintained, are especially three.  
1 The first is, that of the sacramentaries, who hold and defend, that Christ in his supper hath left us nothing save the bare and naked signs of his death and passion. But the truth is, that we are so far off from allowing this conceit and opinion, whatsoever our adversaries babble and prate to the contrary, that we fear not openly, and in the sun light to affirm, that besides the signs themselves, yea and even together with the signs, we and all true christians have the things themselves signified, not only truly and effectually exhibited unto us, but given us also, and bestowed upon us, because it is most certain, that our Saviour Christ, 
john. 14.6.  who is the truth itself, and cannot lie, doth in deed and assuredly accomplish unto us, all the promises which he made us, and meant to seal unto us, by the use of the signs in the sacrament, that so we might become partakers even of his very substance, and grow up also with him into one life and being. And though this cannot be comprehended by the eye of man's reason and understanding, no more than many other things in our christian religion, yet we cannot choose but know and confess that this is sensibly set forth unto us in the use and participation of the supper, by several means and instruments, some of them being outward, as the elements in the sacrament, and some inward, as the spiritual grace represented thereby: for we are not angels, but men, 
Eccle. 12.7.  consisting as the scripture teacheth us, of body and soul: and therefore the Lord, by the use of his word and sacraments, hath provided for both parts, as the word for our ears, 
Rom. 10.17.  and our ears for hearing of the same, that so faith might be wrought in our hearts, and the elements in the sacrament for our taste, sight, feeling, &c: and yet our souls to be nourished and fed, not with any or all of these outward things (for how can outward & corruptible things nourish inward & immortal substances?) but only with the spiritual graces, not only offered, but given also unto us therein: and this likewise to be wrought in us (though our saviour be in heaven in respect of his body, 
Acts. 3.21.  
Psalm. 39.12.  & we here as pilgrims & strangers on the earth) by the wonderful & unsearchable working of his holy spirit in us, and by the means of a lively & assured faith, both which being knit together, do easily join together things that be as far asunder, in respect of distance of place, as one end of the earth is from the other, and as far asunder, as heaven and earth themselves are: or else how could we either believe the holy catholic church, and feel the communion of saints, seeing it commonly falleth out, that the members of that holy fellowship are sundered one of them from another, in respect of great distance of place? or be assured that Christ's righteousness is become ours, seeing he is in the heaven, and we on the earth, if by faith we did not take hold of the same, and apply it unto ourselves. Besides, if men should embrace this sacramentary opinion, what were it but to evert, as the truth of Christ's promises, so the certainty and assuredness of his word, who in plain terms calleth this holy sacrament his body? Wherefore be it far from us to approve of any such dotage, as defaceth the truth of the word, derogateth from Christ, and utterly destroyeth our own faith, than which what can be more horrible to hear, or fearful to think.  
2 The second extremity is that of consubstantiation, some affirming that there is delivered to the people, & they receive, together with the substance of bread, the very substance of Christ's very natural body, so that there is (as it were) an intermingling or mixture of both the substances, in the action of the supper. But this opinion is justly to be disliked and reproved, not only because of the absurdities which it hath common, with the heresy of transubstantiation (whereof we will speak in the next place) but also because it is quite and clean contrary to common sense & reason, confounding and jumbling together two several & distinct substances, and making the less, to wit, the substance of the bread, to comprehend the greater, that is, Christ's human body, yea even his very Godhead, heaven and earth is not able to contain. Besides it doth utterly take away an essential property of Christ's body, 
Isaiah. 66.1. Acts. 7.49.17.21.  for if Christ in respect of his humanity, be like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, 
Hebr. 4.15.  and we know by the light of reason & understanding, that God hath bestowed upon us, yea by very experience, that our bodies are circumscriptible, and tied to a place, it must needs follow, that Christ in respect of his manhood, or Christ as he is man, is and must be tied to a place, and not be in every place, as he must needs be, if these men's assertions be true, which is nothing else in deed, but utterly to destroy Christ's body, which also I prove against them thus: Whosoever taketh away the essential property of any thing, taketh away also the very thing itself. This proposition is proved by this marime in logic: If the definition of a thing, which chiefly consisteth of the essential property of the thing, be taken away, than the thing itself also defined falleth away? as for example: If reasonable living creature, which is the definition of a man be taken away, what shall become of man? or where shall he appear, which is the thing defined? whereof also there is good reason, because the essential property is it that constituteth or maketh the thing. Hitherto the mayor proposition, as we say in schools, with the proofs thereof. Now followeth the minor or second proposition: But these men take away the essential property of a thing, to wit, of a body which is to be circumscriptible or tied to a place, which is in deed an essential property of the body of man, and therefore of Christ's body as he is man, whilst they will have him, as he is man, in sundry places at one time. If any man will deny this, it may easily be proved both by their own writings in sundry places, and also by the definition of a body, which is a quantity that may be divided according to the threefold measuring received amongst men, that is, length, breadth, and thickness, and likewise by the description of a place, which is defined to be a nighness or touching of the thing containing and the thing contained. The conclusion therefore is, that in taking away place from the body of Christ (which they do, whilst they place it in every place, whereas in the nature thereof, it can be but in one place at one time) they do utterly destroy the body or humanity of Christ, or at the least confound it so with the Godhead, as Eutyches did, that they make a confusion (whereas in all truth and uprightness, there should remain a distinction of the proprieties of either nature in his blessed person. But of this enough in this place, because it is somewhat philosophical, and because also in the next section we shall have occasion to deal with the like.  
3 The third extremity, is that of transubstantiation, maintained altogether by the Romish catholics, as they will be called, who hold that the bread and wine (the substance thereof vanishing away, and nothing being left but the accidents or qualities thereof, as in the bread, roundness, whiteness, &c: and in the wine redness, moisture, &c:) are changed, and that by the power of certain words spoken by the priest (as they name him) over the elements, they are turned into the very natural body and blood of our saviour. Concerning this point and the branches thereof, I mind to speak, both more particularly, and more fully, because it is one of the popish opinions, that greatly at this present troubleth the christian world, and namely our flourishing isle of England, and also because in the days of persecution heretofore, both within this land and elsewhere, it hath been the common knife that the wicked have used, to cut the throats of the godly withal, & as it were the hatchet to chop off their heads. It may be, that in this my poor travel some may be converted, from falsehood to truth, and so be saved in the day of Christ: or, if that gracious effect follow not in the adversaries, yet I hope the friends and lovers of truth, shall by this means be somewhat stayed, that they be not carried away with certain enticing and enchanting words, in the mouths of some seducing spirits, whom Antichrist Satan's eldest son hath thrust into the world, to pervert men from the truth and obedience of God.  
1 First, for the name of Transubstantiation, I fear not to affirm, that it is very new and never heard of, before the days of pope Innocent the third, who was about the year of our Lord, 1205, much less was it confirmed as an article of faith, before the Council of Laterane, which was kept and holden in his days. And though we might by authority of good historiographers, make it yet somewhat more new, namely, that it was not ratified as an article of religion, till the Council kept at Constance, a city so named in Germany, in the days of Pope john the 23, which was about the year of our Lord, 
Garan. in sinu. Concilio Harding in confut. Apolog.  1415. Yet to gratify them, we will grant it, to be as old, as the council of Lateran in Rome, held in the year 1215, than the which also their own writers will not prescribe further. But alas what get they hereby, namely, that this their dotage and dream of transubstantiation, at the least, in the name of it, hath not so many grey hairs on the head, or years on the back of it, as they would bear the world in hand it hath, for, as by computation it may appear, it is but 300 & do years old. Neither will that shift serve, that they flee to here, to wit, that though the term were not till then, yet the matter was before. A very likely thing forsooth, as though the fathers of the Greek and Latin churches, so well skilled in those several languages, had not been able aswell to have delivered the word as the matter. In points of greater consequence than this by far, they had their peculiar and significant words, as trinity, harmonously, hypostasis, and such like, and yet in this they must fail forsooth, to the end, that the glory of new invention or forgery rather may be ascribed to some other. But to conclude ●his point: If papists under a false cloak of novelty, will not spare to reject, not only old, but good and true things also, then much more may we, and that upon good ground refuse this fantasy, not only because it is new, but also because it is false, as shall (god willing) hereafter more fully appear.  
2 Howbeit, that there is a change, no man of sound judgement, I think, doth, or will deny, but that is not in respect of the nature of the things themselves: for the elements of bread and wine remain in their own proper & peculiar substance, whereof not only all men may be sufficient witnesses, but almost all the senses of every man, as sight, taste, feeling, &c: but this mutation is made in regard of the use and end whereunto they are applied, because that they are by the Lords own institution and appointment, separated from the common use, yea, & as it were from common bread and wine, and applied, not only to a holy use, whilst they are used in holy assemblies, with sanctified and religious minds, but dedicated also to holy ends, that is to say, to ratify and confirm our Faith in the truth of God's promises, and to be sure seals and pledges to our consciences, of holy things, to wit, of christs body and blood, and of the effects and fruits, that by his death & passion we receive. But that this change should be wrought, by any words, as they say, of consecration, I am so far off from allowing it as true, that I am verily persuaded, that they speak they know not what, because it is not yet resolved, not only amongst the doctors of their side, as Bessarian, Biel, Bonaventure, Catharin, Durand, Scotus, and others, which be the words of consecration, or with which words Christ, and the priest by his example, maketh the bread Christ's body, but because a pope himself (who hath the fullness of all knowledge in his breast, and cannot err, if all be true that they affirm) I mean Pope Innocent the third, 
Innocent. de sa●r. altar. myster. lib. 4. cap. 6.  a great favourer and furtherer of such fantasies, could not well tell how to resolve it, as appeareth by his writings. Yea, in ascribing mutation and change of things, to a form of words uttered by the mouth of a mortal man, they blasphemoussy rob God of that glory which is due unto him alone: 
Psalm. 148.5.  For to him only it belongeth to speak the word, and to have things made, and give it to an other, to whom it at no hand appertaineth. And if words be so strong in the one Sacrament, as to turn bread into Christ's body, and wine into his blood, what reason is there, that the words of institution, uttered by the same person, I mean the priest, with intent also to consecrat, it should not alter the element of water in the other sacrament, to wit, of Baptism, and be so strong and powerful, as to make the same, the very true and natural blood of our Saviour Christ? But let them say what they will. For mine own part, I rest resolute in this, that this assertion, and their whole action in consecration savoureth very strongly of a magical incantation, and I am so much the more confirmed in this, because the Papists rejoicing, as enchanters and sorcerers do, in their odd numbers, have added one word, that is to say (enim) which is not in the Greek or Latin texts, 
Missali Roman ex decreto council. Trident. restitutum, & Pij. quinti jussu editum, pa. 23. col. ●  to the words of institution, saying: Hoc est enim corpus meum, as may appear in their misfall or mass book, and that not their old ones only, but in one newly furbished, by the decree of the council of Trent, and published abroad to behold the light, like an untimely birth, by the authority and commandment of Pope Pius the fift.  
3 And as the novelty of this feigned fantasy of transubstantiation, is a brand good enough, to work the discredit thereof, even as though it had been bored thorough the ear, or worn a paper for forgery and deceit, so the gross and palpable absurdities which follow the same opinion, are sufficient, and strong enough of themselves, to make it out of credit with all persons, endued with holy wisdom and right understanding, and to cause them to esteem of it, not only as a thing false and eronious, but very ungodly and blasphemous also. To reckon up all, or largely to discourse upon the particulars, neither is it my purpose, neither is it almost possible, so fertile a soil, is this point in falsehood, and yet I mind to touch some, and that in such sort also, as the vanity and falsehood of this great corruption, may thereby easily appear, to all such as will not be wilfully blinded, or stop their eyes and ears, at the brightness and sound of truth. At the least, my hope and persuasion is, that though I prevail not either with the malicious blind, or simple ignorant, yet I shall confirm and strengthen my brethren, who together with me, as in many other points of our christian religion, so in this, have embraced the truth of God to our comforts.  
1 First, I say, that this assertion of Transubstantiation, or real presence of Christ's natural body, doth utterly overthrow and destroy the nature of a sacrament, which, as all men know and confess, must ever consist of two parts, to wit, of visible elements, and invisible graces: the truth whereof appeareth not only by the general consent of all men, as before is alleged, but also by the particular view of all the Sacraments mentioned in the old or new testament. But this truth is not only defaced, and laid even with the ground, but swallowed up also, and, as it were, brought to nothing, if so be it, that the nature and substance of the elements, be either changed, or vanish away, in this matter of the lords supper, as some affirm and hold, & the things represented by the same come in their place. The reason whereof is plain and evident, to wit, that the one part of the Sacrament, namely, the visible sign, is then and there absent. And therefore it must of necessity follow, that not only the nature of a Sacrament is destroyed, but by consequent also the Sacrament itself, because the nature of a thing being taken away, the thing itself can not stand or continue, for the nature is it, whereof the thing itself consisteth. Yea this also falleth out upon it, that those men that in the pride and vanity of their own hearts enlarge the number of Sacraments, above them that christ hath left unto his church, publishing to the world, that there are seven, where indeed there are but two. In the true and natural use of the word Sacrament, are found, not only to be clippers of the lords coin, but utter defacers of his holy ordinance, in taking from the Church (whatsoever they pretend to the contrary) one of those that Christ hath left to the same, for the comfort thereof: being found likewise by this means, not only presumptuous against Christ, but injurious also to the people, in spoiling them of so great consolation. So fruitful in ungodliness is the evil weed of corrupt doctrine. Indeed if the sign of the sacrament, and the thing signified by the same, were things contrary, they might have some show of reason, for this unmeasurable affection, but forasmuch as we all know them to be, not things contrary, but divers, no doubt, but they not only may, but do very well stand together, the one of them being so far, from destroying or defacing of an other, that they in a most loving consent agree and concur together to the setting forth of God's glory, and the spiritual good and comfort of his children. Wherefore, I say, it cannot be avoided, but that they do very ill, that do thus malapertly disjoin and put in sunder such things, as God hath most wisely joined and glued as it were fast together.  
2 secondly, I affirm, that this doctrine is wonderfully injurious unto the glorified body of our Saviour, not only whilst it fetcheth him from heaven the place of all such blessedness, as can not be conceived, much less spoken of, into the earth, the place of all unspeakable miseserie and wretchedness, which yet is not all, this circumstance further aggravating the error of this unjust assertion, that they make the blessed body of Christ, our Lord and god, subject to the call of a mortal and miserable creature (the priest I mean, as they name him) as though if he bade go, it should go, or if he commanded it to come, it should come, &c: But also whilst it maketh it, to be rend and torn in pieces, not only with the teeth of good men, a matter which our nature abhorreth, both in respect of the rawness of it, & also in respect of the substance of it, for we are not Anthropophagi, that is, eaters of man's flesh, but even with the teeth of the wicked and ungodly also, which even for this cause, if there were no more, is most untrue and false, because that then they should live for ever, 
john 6.54.  in as much as all that eat his flesh and drink his blood, have this promise, that they have eternal life. And yet these wicked men cease not here, but proceed to further impiety, some of the chiefest among them affirming (though in deed others are not so resolute in it, by which also we may see, that there is not so much unity or consent amongst Popish divines and doctors, as they pretend) that mice, rats, dogs, hogs, and other unreasonable creatures, falling upon consecrated hosts, and devouring the same do undoubtedly eat the blessed body of our Saviour. And if they stayed here, their sin were somewhat less, but this is not all the mischief that falleth out in this behalf: for whereas in truth and christian religion, the body of our Saviour Christ is now immortal, and in immortal glory, as God's word, and the articles of our Belief agreeing with the same do plainly teach us, these men subject it to putrefaction, corruption, and worms, by reason of the long reservation thereof, and at the last, to consuming in the fire (a fact of most horrible cruelty, if it were Christ's flesh, but no marvel though they deal so with him, when they handle his Saints as hardly as that cometh unto, which thing experience of all ages doth sufficiently prove) because it may not otherwise be made away (as they themselves confess) if it be once taken with hoariness, mouldines, or such like. If any man doubt of the truth and certainty of these points objected against them, let him but read their own works, and he shall see the matter sufficiently cleared. Yea, I suppose, that the very adversaries themselves will not grow so shameless, as to deny that which with a full mouth, and in the open Sun light, hath been published by the best of their side. And if they would or should, yet we have the lives, and the leaves, the words and the works, in sentence and sense, for manner and matter to charge them withal, and to throw this dung into their faces.  
3 Thirdly, I say, that by consequent it doth most cursedly confound (if not utterly subvert and overthrow) the humanity of our Saviour, with his Godhead, whilst that which indeed and all truth, is proper and peculiar to the eternal Deity only: for example, to be every where, which can not agree to any but to GOD alone, as both reason and religion will sufficiently persuade, if we will give ear unto the same, is yet notwithstanding, most blasphemously attributed and ascribed to his manhood, which (as hath been already showed before) and shall more plainly, if GOD will, be proved hereafter, is, and must of necessity, since the time of his most glorious ascension into Heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the majesty of GOD his Father, the very only seat and throne, as it were, of his bodily residence, be circumscriptible and tied to a place. As for that which they are wont usually to object, for the impeachment of this truth, and the establishment of their own error, being taken from the glorification of our saviours body, is easily beaten back and answered, as which indeed, if it be well weighed, is not only untrue, as in respect of itself: because, though glorification imply a most excellent and heavenly estate, doth not yet for all that destroy the essential properties of bodies glorified, but most absurd and false also, as in regard of us. For if the glorification of Christ's body, have removed or taken away that essential property, to wit, that it should truly, and indeed, be tied unto a place, than the like shall be performed, and the same effect follow, in all the glorified bodies of the faithful after the resurrection, because our Saviour hath not only glorified his own body for himself, he rising therein a mighty conqueror over death and hell, and now triumphantly ruling and reigning in the heavens in all majesty, but for our sakes also hath achieved that great honour, we having from him this assured promise in his word, 
Philip. 3.21.  that God shall change our base and vile bodies, that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according unto the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself. But to say, that our bodies glorified after the rising again of the same in the general day of judgement shall be every where, a rash and uncertain, yea, a beastly and blasphemous assertion, because it ascribeth that unto us, which is proper and peculiar only to GOD: for unto him alone it pertaineth to fill, heaven, earth, and all places, always, and at one time, as infinite places of Scripture do plainly prove, therefore this opinion also, concerning Christ's glorified body, being every where, or in infinite places at one time, must of necessity be such likewise.  
4 fourthly, it doth directly destroy, and, as it were, at one blow blot out, and deface, all those Articles of our most precious Faith, and Christian religion, which do concern Christ's assured ascension into Heaven, his majestical sitting at the right hand of the Father, and his glorious coming again from thence, together with that infinite number of most plain places of GOD'S holy word, that out of the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, may be drawn for the proof of those most comfortable and necessary points. To deal with every one of these by themselves shortly, and in few words: I would feign know if our Saviour Christ be here upon earth, in respect of his bodily power and presence, how he can justly, as in regard of the same his body, be said to have ascended into Heaven? Or let them tell us, if he remain with us in his flesh, how he can be truly said in his manhood, to sit at the right hand of his Father in Heaven? Or how it can be in religion or reason affirmed, that our Saviour shall come from Heaven, with great power and glory to judge the quick and the dead, seeing he is here on earth already. The Scripture telleth us for his ascension, 
Acts 1.9.  that in the sight and beholding of the blessed Apostles, yea whiles they looked steadfastly towards heaven, he was taken up. Let them show so much for his bodily abode upon earth, and prove it by such substantial witness, and we are ready to yield. Besides, we know by the word, and therefore believe it, that as he was seen go into heaven, 
Acts 1.10.  so shall he come again: but he was seen to ascend thither bodily, and therefore so shall he return from thence again. I suppose they will not say, that our Saviour had two bodies, one that he took with him, an other that he left here, for that were to make him altogether monstrous, and men scrupulous, none knowing in whether of them he performed the work of their redemption. And to say that that one blessed body of his was divided, is as absurd and erroneous, because it can not be so, but that the whole body itself must be impaired and mangled, at the least, if not destroyed and so the work of salvation overthrown. To stand upon any naked interpretation touching the right hand of God, will not serve their turn: for there being nothing meant thereby in this article of our belief, but the great glory that is in heaven prepared for the saints, and that most excellent blessedness that belongeth to them, whereof our saviour Christ was in a most full measure made by his ascension into heaven, as in respect of his humanity absolute partaker, what could they gain▪ Do they imagine that it would hereupon ensue, that Christ should be every where, and by consequent on earth? but they are deceived: for why do they not as well consider the word sitting, which implieth local residence in a place? or do they not know and believe that heaven itself is not every where, but local rather? or will they not see, that without warrant of the word (yea contrary to the same, which in sundry places opposeth heaven and earth one of them against another) or sense of human judgement, they jumble and confound them together? Reason will lead us to this, that none can be said to go up into the place where he is, or to come down from it, when he remaineth there. And though we mind not to subject our saviour, specially as in respect of his eternal Godhead to human sense, yet by the same we may and aught to be led, not to destroy the essential properties of his manhood. Now then, whether shall we believe this truth of the Lord, or men's fantasies that go about to pervert our persuasions, and deceive our understandings? Let men of the world deem what they lust, this is the truth that God hath sanctified unto us in his word, and I do steadfastly believe it in my heart, and will through God's goodness and strength always, confess the same with my mouth, that from the very time of Christ's ascension into Heaven, 
Acts. 3. 2●.  The Heavens must contain his natural body until the time that all things be restored, that is even to the world's end.  
5 fiftly, I say that this opinion doth unjustly deprive us of all such spiritual graces and comforts for our consciences, as God the father in his son Christ, by sending the Holy ghost the third person in the deity, hath not only promised, but in good time will perform and bestow upon the whole church generally and every sound particular member of the same: yea if we weigh it well we shall find, that it is the ruin and bane of the church itself, both in the whole body of it, and in the several parts. Our saviour himself in most plain and express terms faith: 
john. 16.7.  I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you. He that knoweth any thing of truth, is well acquainted with this, that generally all the word, but most especially the comfortable promises contained in the same, be as it were, the life and soul of the church itself. The verity and certainty whereof, though it lie in Christ, 
1. Cor. 1.20.  because in him all God's promises are yea and amen, yet the particular applications of the same, to our own hearts, must come from the powerful working of the holy spirit. But how shall we come to the effectual feeling of these, if the force of the spirit be not shed abroad into our hearts? or how can the holy spirit be called the pledge of God's promises, 
Ephes. 1.13.  and the earnest penny of our adoption and salvation, if that promise of our saviour Christ be not accomplished? or how can we find comfort against the fear of death? or peace in our consciences against the sight of sin, and judgement due unto us for the same without this? Of a truth, the remembrance of our dissolution, and departure hence (this being removed) shall be grievous, and the horror of hell, the just punishment of our iniquity will be ready every hour to overwhelm us. We need not stand long upon this point: either this must be true, that we have the Holy ghost, in most abundant measure, by the bodily absence of our saviour Christ, given to the church, as before is said and proved, and so a spiritual supply bestowed upon us for a bodiely want, that being more excellent than this, because the apostle saith, that henceforth we know no man after the flesh, 
2. Corinth. 5.16.  yea though we had known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more: or else if Christ be here bodily present, the Holy ghost is not yet come, nor the apostles endued with miraculous graces, nor the fullness of the Gentiles gathered in, nor the comfort and peace of the church provided for: all which are fearful to think upon, but much more horrible to feel, and in deed are quite & clean contrary to the truth of the word: and if we had no more but only the second chapter of the Acts of the apostles, it were sufficient to overthrow the same.  
6 sixtly, this assertion doth not only closely, but openly accuse Christ himself of manifest lying & untruth, who as both the prophets and apostles do bear witness, did no sin, 
Isaiah. 53.9. 1. Peter. 2.22.  neither was there any guile found in his mouth. He himself hath plainly told us: The poor ye have always with you, 
Mark. 14.7.  and when ye will ye may do them good, but me ye shall not have always. And again elsewhere: 
john. 14.2.  I go to prepare a place for you. If this be not blasphemy, to do what we can to taint him with falsehood, that is both truth itself, and the author of all truth, I know not what is blasphemy. And yet this iniquity stayeth not here, for it depriveth us first of the comfort of the forgiveness of sins, because if our saviour have been tainted with any manner of, iniquity though never so small, he cannot be a price and ransom for sin, because he that must recommit sinners to God, must of necessity be free from transgression. secondly, it doth (as it were) violently take and pull from us, the hope that we have of the heavenly inheritance. For why hath our saviour Christ sundered himself for a space from us, as in respect of his bodily presence, not yet leaving us comfortless (for he hath given us his spirit to supply (as it were) his absence) but to the end that we might hereafter in time to come most comfortably enjoy him, both in body and soul for evermore? Doth not he himself say: 
john. 16.16.  Yet a little while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while and ye shall see me, for I go to my father? And in another place: Though I go to prepare a place for you, 
john. 14, 3.  yet will I come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am there may ye be also. And yet all this notwithstanding, superstitious and brainsick people, dare with open mouth affirm, that we have him continually with us here upon earth, and that not in respect of his spiritual power and presence only, whereunto we ourselves most gladly yield (as a very principal comfort unto us, in the days of all our distresses) because in that respect, as God eternal with his father, we believe that he filleth all places, both in heaven and in earth, and is said to be with the believers even unto the end of the world, 
Matth. ●3. 20.  but as in respect of his corporal and bodily presence also, than the which nothing undoubtedly can be more false and absurd, as hath been sufficiently showed already, and plainly proved before.  
Now having waded thus far in the truth and certainty of the matter itself, we might safely shut up and conclude this point, but that there remain sundry of the adversaries objections to be answered: wherein I cannot but let the godly reader understand, that I mind not to answer either all of them, or many of them, because the most in truth be frivolous and vain, and it would be over tedious to wade into such idle and unprofitable matter. Three there are in deed, which because they seem to be of special strength and ordinary use, I can not let pass. Two of them are taken from the words of the text of holy scripture, and the third from the omnipotency and almighty power of our saviour Christ: which though they be common things in deed, and such as might as easily be rejected as objected, because the controversy is not touching the plain words of the text, and the almighty power of Christ, as God (for be it far from us to be so absurd, as to draw things of such evidency and excellency into question, but we strive rather, as for the true sense & natural meaning of the words, so for the verity of Christ's person, and the essential properties of either his distincted natures) yet we cannot, but both for the strengthening of them that be weak and ignorant in the same, as also for the discharge of our conscience before God and man, but in a word or two, as it were, make a short, but withal a sound, sufficient, and true answer I hope, to every one of these three severally, and by themselves.  
1 The first place objected is these words of our saviour, in the gospel after john: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, 
john. 6.13.  and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Weereunto I answer: first that neither these words. neither the rest of the chapter, can in any probability or show of reason, properly be understood of the Lords supper. And if we had no more for it but this, yet were this sufficient, because at that time, the supper itself was not instituted and ordained, but a long while after, as in the evangelists writings doth plainly appear: but must rather be referred to our spiritual communicating or partaking with Christ, by the means of a lively and steadfast faith, apprehending the word generally, and applying particularly unto ourselves, all the gracious and sweet promises that the Lord hath made and offered unto us therein, which may plainly appear to be most true, partly because he persisteth by a continual thread of speech (as it were) in the metaphor of bread or meat, mentioned before vers. 26.27. using also for that purpose, as every man may easily perceive, sundry borrowed speeches, agreeing well to the circumstance of the matter wherein he was to deal, which he would not, or needed not to have done, if he had mean so grossly or carnally, as these men fantasy: and partly because he speaketh so often, not of eating only, but also of believing, as verse. 35.40. which can not be properly attributed to any outward or material thing, such as the body and flesh of Christ then was and is, but to inward and spiritual matters, which as it may be gathered by sundry places of holy scripture, 
Rom. 8.24.  the apostle affirming, that hope that is seen is no hope: for how can a man hope for that which he seethe? 
2. Cor. 5.7.  and that we walk by faith, and not by sight, 
Hebr. 11.1.  yea and that faith itself is the ground of things which are hoped for, and the evidence of things which are not seen: so also may it be proved even by the very nature of faith, which being a spiritual and inward quality given us of God, 
Philip. 1.29. john. 4.24.  who is nothing else but spirit & truth, and wrought in us by spiritual means, as the word & sacraments outwardly, and the Holy ghost inwardly in our hearts, must also of necessity be directed to spiritual & inward things. But let us for reasoning sake grant that the place were to be understood of the holy supper, yet doth it not for all that establish any gross and carnal eating of the natural flesh or body of our saviour Christ, because if that were so, then had not our saviour sufficiently answered the Capernatts or jews of Capernaum, who vainly dreaming and doting of such a gross and carnal manducation or eating, 
john 6.52.  said: How can this man give us his flesh? meaning thereby that it was altogether impossible and unnatural, both in respect of himself, and in regard of them also, because it was seldom or never heard of except it were amongst the Anthropophagi, that men did willingly give their flesh to be food unto others, or that others did eat the same, but had rather yielded unto them in that their conceit, which besides that it containeth an error in religion and nature, as before hath been showed, is quite and clean contrary to the purpose of Christ in that place, and closely accuseth him, as though either in ignorance he could not, or in an evil mind he would not have instructed them in their blindness, all which are horrible to hear, blasphemous to speak, and beastly to think. Besides, if that corrupt sense should be allowed, mark what a Sea of absurdities would ensue thereupon. As first in what a miserable estate should we leave the holy Fathers of the old covenants, who were long before the time of Christ's taking our flesh upon him, & therefore could not eat it, and so by consequent could not be saved. 
Matth. 8.11.  And yet our saviour in plain terms affirmeth, that they were in the kingdom of heaven. And S. Paul also saith, 
1. Cor. 20.3.4.  that they did all eat the same spiritual meat that we do, and did all drink the same spiritual drink that we do: which word spiritual would be marked as directly opposite to gross, carnal, or bodily eating, plainly also proving that betwixt their sacraments and ours there was no difference at all, as in respect of substance and effect, saving only that theirs were in time before ours, even as they themselves also were, and instituted in other outward elements than ours. secondly in what a miserable case & condition should we put poor infants, specially of the believers, if they should be taken away by death before that coming to the years of discretion, they could communicate or partake in that holy sacrament. One of these two gross absurdities must needs follow thereupon, yea & be granted also, unless men willbe stiff-necked in error, to wit, either that infants must have the holy communion ministered unto them, which thing in deed Augustine did once fantastically imagine, as appeareth by many places of his works, notwithstanding all that papists say to clear him thereof. But S. Paul is flatly against it, who will have none admitted thereto, 
1. Corinth. 11.28. 2. Corinth. 13.  but such as can examine & try themselves, whether they be in the faith or no, which infants cannot do, as all men may plainly perceive, not only because they want reason, as in the practice thereof, but specially because they be void of faith, which ordinarily & commonly is bestowed upon the faithful, 
Rom. 10.17.  by hearing the word preached, as the apostle saith: or else that with out it, they are all condemned already, which is very absurd & beastly, not only because it tieth grace, yea the grace of salvation to the sacrament, by the work wrought, than the which what can be more unreasonable? for so good and bad having the outward sign, shall also have the thing itself, to wit, eternal life, but also because it abolisheth, as Gods eternal election, whereby he hath chosen those that be his in Christ, to life everlasting, before the foundations of the world were laid, so his gracious and continual covenant made to us, that he will be a loving God and merciful father to us and to our seed for ever, 
Genesis. 17.7.  by which covenant also we are assured even of his good will and favour towards us in Christ. By all this we may see, that even for the avoiding of these absurdities, and many such like, the place of the sixth of john can at no hand he understood either of the sacrament or of the carnal eating of Christ's body in the same, or of any such gross thing whatsoever, but of the apprehension or laying hold of him, together with the particular application of him to ourselves by the hand or instrument of faith, who even for that purpose is propounded and set forth unto us, by the ministery of his word and Gospel, or (if the adversaries will needs have it so) offered unto us in the use of the supper, because that though the things be diverse, representing him unto us, as the word and sacraments, yet there is in that respect but one mean given us, to take hold of him by (even as he himself is but one Christ, that in these sundry things is exhibited unto us) and that is that great grace and gift of faith, which we must use in in the word and sacraments, as men do in the apprehending of Christ's righteousness: which righteousness of his, though it be not essentially dwelling in us, yet it is effectually made ours, whilst we apprehend and lay hold of it by a sound and sure faith, applying the same also unto our own hearts: and even in like sort is Christ God and man, together withal his merits, not only offered, but laid hold of in the word and sacraments, yea and comfortably felt likewise to the spiritual sustentaion and nourishment of our souls, whereof also this is a good reason, that of like things, there is always, and so should be continually a like consideration.  
The second place objected, is that sentence reported by the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and Saint Paul himself also, reciting the institution of the supper, which our saviour Christ used, saying: This is my body: 
Matth. 26.26. Mark. 14.22. Luke. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24.  which they urge in the letter after this sort. Hath not Christ said it in plain terms? and shall not I believe it, though that my carnal understanding can not conceive the same? To all which I answer, first that the question is not of the bare words or letter, for we as well as they confess the same, and what man hath there been that ever doubted thereof? yea what heretic ever was there, that would not, or did not allege the letter of the text, for the maintenance & upholding of his heresy or error? but of the true sense and right meaning thereof, which whether they or we have & gain, shall I hope appear anon, to the upright reader. secondly, we confess also, that we are bound to believe all such things as are comprehended in god's word, yea though our sensual reason cannot in deed comprehend the same: for be it far from us, to labour to bring the incomprehensible truth of the eternal majesty within the straight bounds and limits of man's understanding, no though he were regenerated, and had received a great measure of the graces of Gods holy spirit: and yet in such sort must we believe them all, & that to such ends also, as the lord himself hath appointed, at no hand stretching them further, than the Lord would have us, for that is to be wise in our own eyes, & to make ourselves more sharp sighted than God, nor yet restraining them to narrower purposes than the Lord hath laid them out for, for that were, at the least, great unfaithfulness, both towards the Lord himself, and men also, neither yet failing in the allegation of them, either in the matter, manner, or end, for if we do so, we do nothing else thereby, but heap up just condemnation against our own souls, but reverently receiving them, and faithfully alleging them in that just measure, weight, and proportion, that the Lord himself hath left them unto us, even as his only lawful and current coin, which we can not clip, embase, or impair any manner of way, without high treason against his eternal majesty. Now concerning the words, and the plainness of them, I say, that other words, both in the old and new Testament, are as plain as they, which yet notwithstanding must be otherwise interpreted, than the words themselves seem to import, or else, not only absurdities in reason, but errors in religion will ensue thereupon. For example in the book of Exodus, the paschal lamb, with the ceremonies belonging thereto, is called, The Lords passover: 
Exod. 12.11.  whereas now we know, and no man can choose but confess, that it was not the Lords passover in deed, but signified and set out the same rather. For the Lords passover was his overpassing or passing by the Israelites houses, marked with the blood of the Lamb, to the Egyptians, there to destroy the first borne. So likewise in the new Testament, 
john 15.5.  Christ saith of himself, I am the vine, than the which what can be more plain? And yet we acknowledge with our mouths, and believe in our hearts, that Christ was no natural vine, but rather that he calleth himself so, in a certain resemblance, because look what property the fruit of the vine hath in respect of our bodies, to wit, to comfort men, and to make them glad hearts, the same hath Christ and the fruits of his grace received by Faith, in respect of our souls, namely, to replenish our hearts with all Spiritual joy and gladness, both of this life, and of the life to come. And as the branches of the vine, have nothing of themselves, but all that they have, they have it from the vine itself, so none whosoever they be can bring forth fruit, but by abiding in him, and being made fruitful thorough his grace. And even in like manner is the bread of the lords Supper called his body, because (as we have said before) look what proper and peculiar office, the bread hath or yieldeth to our natural bodies, namely, to nourish and strengthen the same, the like doth jesus Christ's body broken, taken hold of by Faith, Spiritually communicate unto our souls, namely, it feedeth and strengtheneth them, to the assured hope and feeling of eternal life. And this manner of speech, attributing that to the sign which is proper and peculiar to the thing signified, is very usual in the Scripture, as a man meanly conversant in the same may plainly perceive: the cause whereof, is, the strait analogy, proportion, & agreement, which is between the sign, & the thing signified, and not any other respect of consubstantiation, transubstantiation, or any such like fantastical dotage. Besides all these things, the very circumstances of time, place, person, and manner of doing, do sufficiently set out the vanity and untruth of this gross interpretation. For this Sacrament being instituted by Christ himself a little before his death, in the presence o● the Apostles (who had all their senses satisfied, in the beholding, hearing, and feeling of the natural body of our Saviour Christ) in the visible elements of bread and wine, he himself sitting at the tabl● with them, and not only in their hearing speaking these words, but also in their sight and presence actually breaking the bread, it could not be that that bread offered unto them, as the pledge of his body, should be his natural body or body of flesh: unless you will say, that Christ had two bodies, one sitting at the Table, instituting the action of the Supper, and administering the same in his own person, and an other borne in his hands, and delivered unto the Apostles, than the which what can be, not only more absurd and blasphemous, in respect of our Saviour Christ himself, he being by this means made a monster, and not become man, but also more unprofitable or uncertain to us, as which might justly provoke us to doubt whether of his bodies were crucified for our transgressions? And thus as we do, for good causes before specified, as you see reject this gross sense, so for the instruction of the ignorant, and strengthening of the weak, we will in a few lines put down the true meaning of these words. For the better performance whereof I would have this to be noted in the first place, which I am sure also no man of sound judgement can well deny, that all words and sayings whatsoever, must be expounded, according to the subject, argument, or matter whereof they entreat: and therefore these words also, speaking particularly of the lords supper, must of necessity be understood of the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ, exhibited unto us in that supper. Otherwise we must say, that Christ spoke of one thing, and meant an other, which as it might be injurious to ourselves, we not knowing which way to take Christ's words, so should it accuse him for want of plain dealing, which dotage differeth not much from blasphemy against his person. secondly, I would have this to be remembered, that seeing all, one and other, both we, and our adversaries, confess these words to be spoken of the Sacrament, we must not gather that the word body is otherwise attributed to the bread than the nature and quality (as a man would say) of sacraments will bear: for them if we should grant that, we might easily destroy and overthrow all the sacraments, that either have been or are in the Church of God, because in this behalf or respect there is a like proportion to be observed in one, as in all, and if one be defaced in respect of a wrong sense, the rest can hardly or not at all stand upright. For sith the scripture speaking of Sacraments, useth one ordinary and common kind of speech to them all, what reason can there be showed, that the words in one sacrament being understood so, the self-same words should not have the self-same sense and meaning in other? Thirdly, that this is the nature of all sacraments, that the elements and rites used in the same, be true and effectual, not signs only, but testimonies and pledges also of those things, for the signifying and subjecting of which unto our senses, they were ordained, otherwise the nature of a sacrament should be overthrown, which consisteth of an outward and visible element, and of an inward and invisible grace, and we spoiled of our faith, which is not, ne ought not to be occupied about those gross and earthly matters, but upon spiritual and heavenly things only. And yet when I use this word (sign) I would not be taken as though I meant, that they are bare, vain, or unprofitable signs, such as painters commonly use to make, but even thus far forth effectual, that it is no more true & certain, that we see the same with our eyes, touch them with our hands receive them with our mouths and eat them, than that it is also as true & certain, that the Lord exhibiteth and offereth unto us, yea, and giveth us also, whatsoever they represent unto us, that is, the very body and blood of our saviour Christ & the fruits & effects flowing from the same, to be the spiritual food of our souls, to the full possession of eternal life. These rules being thus then observed, I gather & put down this true and holy sense of these words: This is my body, that is to say, that the bread which Christ took, blessed, broke, and gave unto his disciples, appointing the same to be used, as the element of this action, and to be continued in his Church, in such form and sort as he did institute it, until his coming again, is sacramentally and spiritually, being received and eaten by faith, a sure sign, and an effectual pledge, that Christ's body is become the spiritual food of our souls. And I use these words, sacramentally and spiritually, that thereby I might meet with their gross slander, who, when they hear of a sign, and a thing signified, say, that we do evacuate and make of no force the lords supper. No, we are so far off from holding any such conclusion, that we know, believe, and confess, that the faithful and duly prepared communicants, do beside the outward signs and elements truly receive by the mean of faith, after a spiritual sort, that which is represented by the outward elements, to wit, whole Christ, with all his gifts and graces. And yet for the doing of this, we do not pull Christ's body out of heaven, or else imagine either Transubstantiation, or any such like devise, but only think upon and believe, the sacramental conjunction of the sign, and the thing signified, for those things can not stand with the truth of Christ's manhood, as hath been before showed, neither indeed are they necessary to salvation, because that to the end, we may be made partakers of christ, it is not of necessity required, that his body should be really present upon earth, but it rather behoveth us, by the power of the Holy ghost, and thorough faith, to mount up into heaven, and there to lay hold of him, that we may sit with him in the heavenly places, which in this life can not be performed in any other sort, than in a spiritual manner, and thorough faith, which faith is begotten and confirmed in us by the holy-ghost, whereunto he useth as instruments, the preaching of God's word, and the administration and participation of the Sacraments, by which all our senses, are even as it were, provoked and pressed, wholly to possess Christ himself. So that you see I do figuratively expound these words, and not grossly, whereunto I am drawn also, partly by the very dealing of the Papists themselves, who do not, either in the wine of the supper, the other part of this Sacrament, either in Baptism, the other Sacrament of the church (which two alone God hath given unto it) acknowledge any such gross Transubstantiation of in our corruption, we hardly conceiving it now in our regeneration & new birth, so could it not have been performed in the godhead alone. Not that I mean, that GOD was not able to have forgiven the sins of his people, and to have released them from condemnation, and restored them to everlasting life, but that GOD could not by suffering, because his essence and nature, is altogether impassable, have suffered any thing for our redemption. Wherefore, for as much as, the question between the Transubstantiators and us, is not now, of the presence of Christ's deity in the Sacrament, but of the presence of his human body, we say, and flatly affirm it also, that if we should grant this, yet could it no whit at all prejudice us, neither could they gain their cause thereby, for unless they can prove Christ, as he is man, to be omnipotent, and every where (which thing they shall never be able to do) they have said as much, as if they had said nothing at all. But let us for reasoning sake grant them this much, that Christ as he is man, were omnipotent, even as GOD the Father, or he himself in respect of his Godhead is: Doth it therefore follow, that because he can do every thing, he therefore either will do the same, or indeed doth it? I suppose verily, no. For besides that, in Schools it is commonly said, a posse ad esse, the consequence or reason is not good, which were sufficient answer to this frivolous and vain objection, man's reason in the blindness and corruption of it, being endued with strength and force enough to answer the same: besides this, I say, we that are truly taught of GOD, both by his word and spirit, do know, that though we believe, that the Lord can do whatsoever pleaseth him both in heaven and in earth, which serveth wonderfully to magnify his almighty power in the exceeding excellency thereof, and greatly to strengthen our weak faith, in the days of our calamities and distresses, yet notwithstanding we firmly believe, that he will not only do nothing, but that he can not do any thing in regard of us, contrary unto that will of his, that he hath revealed for us in his word. For even as a man of might on earth, having given forth his speech of assurance in the word of a Prince or Christian, though perhaps to one far inferior to himself, is yet notwithstanding tied thereby, not as in respect of his power, for that remaineth as great after as before, but as in regard of his credit, and the persons to whom he hath by his word after a sort, as it were bound himself: so is it with the Lord to usward. And the reason of this is, not the abridgement or shortening of his power, (for be it far from mortal men, to presume in any thing, though never so little, to restrain the eternal power of the immortal God) but because his will and power (I mean of the same, as they are revealed to us by his word, and particularly by his promises made unto us therein concerning the same) be in respect of us, so conjoined and knit together, that look whatsoever he will do, that he can do, and look whatsoever he can do, that he will do. Oh how unreasonable is this, that we will give earthly Potentates leave, because of their high callings and excellent wisdom, that we suppose to be in them now and then, to hedge in the bounds of their power and authority, by their words at their own pleasure, and will not grant or yield so much to the Almighty? Surely there is very great and good reason to the contrary, for as for men, by reason of the blindness and ignorancy of their own hearts they can not well tell when it is good, either to straighten or enlarge themselves, whereas GOD, by reason of the fullness of goodness that is in him can not choose but do good, whether he enlarge or abridge himself. But to make all this plain, by one or two examples in stead of many, we are all persuaded, that God can not drown the world any more, with the waters of an universal flood, because we know by his word he will not, for the more certain and assured sealing up of the same in our hearts, and not for any discredit unto him, or shortening of his arm and power, he hath not only given us his comfortable and sweet word of promise, but hath set his bow in the clouds, 
Gen. 9.12, 13, etc.  to be a most effectual pledge of the same unto us. Again, we all do know and believe, that though GOD, in respect both of himself, and his almighty power, with whom all things, yea, the most hardest, are possible, can if he would save all men, yet we fear not to say and affirm, that in respect of us he can not save all men, because we know by his revealed will in his word, that he will not save them all. For some, as well for the manifestation of his justice and judgement against all ungodliness, must be the vessels ordained for destruction, as well as others also for the declaration of his mercy, in saving whom he will, vessels of salvation and eternal life. And even the like may we conclude, touching this matter of the Supper, namely, that though we were persuaded or should grant, against all truth and reason, that Christ, as he is GOD might do what he would, or as he is man, might be every where, yet because he hath revealed the contrary in his word, and namely, that he will have his body to be circumscriptible and tied to a place, to wit, Heaven, yea, which is more, to a certain place in heaven (for though Christ as in respect of his eternal Godhead, fill Heaven and earth, and the heaven of heavens is not able to contain him, yet in respect of his human body, though it be glorified, he is & must be contained in some part of the heavens) that therefore it can be no injury at all to him, neither any debasing of his omnipotent power, to say that now he cannot be bodily in the sacrament, much less bodily in so many sacraments, as be celebrated and ministered in so sundry and infinite places at one time, no more than it is to God the father, in saying that now he cannot drown the world, or save the reprobat, as hath been before declared.  
Thus much I think sufficient and enough to all these objections, being willing here to finish this present short treatise, saving that I have thought good in this place to add (even as a challenge to the adverse party, and as matter of necessary instruction, to such as either be simply ignorant (for as for the malicious blind, it is almost impossible to reclaim them) or do already in some measure see the truth) these three points following.  
1 First, that I am ready in all holy love largely to answer any thing that christianly shall be further objected concerning this question: I say christianly objected: for if any shall either curiously or captiously propound any thing, I think it most convenient, rather to leave such in their own folly for a season, till it shall please God, at some one time or other, even extraordinarily as it were, to make them to see the same, if it shall so please him, than to spend time, and to travel in satisfying of their vain curiosities.  
2 secondly, that though this point of transubstantiation, brought in by papists, be great and gross concerning the matter of the supper, yet that they fail not alone herein, which might perhaps make their heresy less heinous, but hold many more errors concerning that point, some of them as palpable, if not more gross and blasphemous than this, and some of them less. To pursue them all, and in a large sort, I mind not at this present, because it hath been already performed by men of great excellency, & the Lord may hereafter give a more fit occasion, & yet I will rehearse & touch a few, desiring the godly reader, with all holy wisdom, to consider both of them, and the rest of that sort.  
1 First, in that they make it a sacrifice propitiatory (as they call it) for the quick ●nd the dead: by which they do not only scorn God, & deride men, whilst they make men believe, that God will be plea●ed with such odd devices, and that his ●ustice shall be answered with the works ●f our own invention, causing us also ●o think that sin is no heinous thing ●hat can be expiated and done away by ●he offering up a poor thin cake, as ●hough that spiritual and innumerable offences might be taken away with bodily exercises, and that not of a holy and innocent man, but many times of one of the worst amongst the people: but utterly also evacuate by that means, and make of no force the eternal priesthood and sacrifice of our saviour Christ, which consisteth specially in this, that he hath once for all upon the altar of the cross, offered up himself unto God the father, a full and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the people, as the apostle plainly proveth in many places of his Epistle to the hebrews. But no marvel that they should annihilat and deface Christ's offices, which destroy his natures, and by consequent his whole person also (as these men do by confounding the proprieties of either nature, as hath been before declared) yea and overthrow all their own religion: for if the sacrifice of the mass● (as they call it) will do away all sin what need we regard prayer to dead● saints, auricular confession, the pope's supremacy, and a thousand more such abominations, seeing that by setting a soul● priest on work, they may have full forgiveness? and why should we esteem pardons, indulgences, and such like trash and trumpery? nay rather, why should they not live as they lust, not only as epicures, but as brute beasts, seeing he may be assured for money, that that which another performeth for him, shall be available both to body and soul, and that to eternal salvation: but fie upon all such beastly & blasphemous dotages.  
2 secondly, there is but a little less leaven in that matter that they hold of uncomitancie, by which they have not only spoiled the people of the use of the cup, which both by Christ's own institution, & by his express commandment, saying: Drink ye all of this, doth in all truth and uprightness belong unto them, and by consequent also rob them of the fruits & effects of his blood, as the forgiveness of their sins, and their full reconcilement to almighty God: but also accused our ●auior Christ of folly and rashness, instituting more signs in the sacrament of his supper, than he needed. And all this they ●aue done under this shadow, that because ●o body is without blood, and they have ●efore (presupposing that the bread is tur●ed into the body, as in deed if men will presuppose, either unpossible or untrue ●hings, every thing will follow of it) ea●en the body, therefore must it needs follow, that they have drunk also his blood. Tell us I pray you, why might not we as ●ell say, respecting always the sacrament, ●hat when men have drunk of the cup, ●hey have eaten his flesh? for if the partaking of the one include the other, or if ●hole Christ, as they say, be in every part ●f the visible elements, then why do not ●en receiving the wine, as well receive ●e body as the blood? or why may not we ●y, that eating is drinking, or drinking is ●ting? or why do not they themselves ●minister it in the element of wine oue●e, as well as in the bread alone? or why ●ay not we, even beating them with their own assertions, of an unbloody sacrifice, and of the real presence of Christ's natural body in the same, say and affirm that the body may be there without the blood or the blood without the body? for if the sacrifice contain the natural and fleshy body of our saviour, and yet of itself it is unbloody, we see no reason why we may not safely conclude, that the body is ther● without blood? But I know not whethe● herein I should blame them for their beastliness, or reprove them for their pride that dare thus presumptuously alter th● Lords very ordinance and institution.  
3 thirdly their adoration is as corrupt and filthy, whilst they cause men t●● commit gross and palpable idolatry, i● falling down before a piece of bread (what do I say? I know not whether I may call it by that name or no, for it ma● be disputed of, whether their mass ca●● be bread) and worshipping a wafer cake the work of men's hands. And if it wer● a foul fault in the Gentiles, to turn th● glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, 
Rom. 1.23.  and of birds, and four footed beasts, and of creeping thing all which notwithstanding had life in them, and were in deed the creatures of GOD, what must it be in the papists, who transform his wonderful majesty into a musty or whory cake, which though it be kept but a small while, is yet notwithstanding subject to putrefaction and worms? But suppose it were Christ's body, as they say it is, yet I affirm, that they may not adore Christ's body alone, yea and that they cannot worship the same of itself, without horrible idolatry, whereof also the reason is plain and evident, namely because it is a creature, to which it is not lawful to give that honour that is due unto the creator alone, because he being jealous over his own glory, will not have it given to any other. For though it be true, that Christ as he is god, is to be worshipped as his father: yea & Christ God & man in one person is to be adored, yet we cannot without great sin, and grievous offence against God & his word, worship the humanity or manhood of our saviour Christ only. And if they will say, as I myself have heard some of them ignorantly affirm, that if Christ God & man may be worshipped, therefore christ also as he is man may be worshipped: I answer, that beside, it is a fallacy or deceit in reasoning, called in schools Fallacia divisionis, it is a flat contrary to the truth of christian religion, which teacheth us, that many things may be spoken of the person of our saviour Christ, which can not rightly or truly be said of either nature, and the reason is, because as the unity of the person must be maintained & upheld, so must godly men have an especial regard, that they confound not the several proprieties of either nature. To make this plain by a point or two. A man may safely say, that Christ God and man in one person was crucified on the cross, & died for our sins, whereof also this is the very true and sufficient reason, because in his whole person he performed the work of our redemption, and not in either of the natures alone, or by itself: but now if hereupon a man should say and conclude, therefore Christ God was crucified for our sins, besides that he should utter an error or heresy in christian religion, he should speak blasphemy against God, whose nature (as we have said heretofore) is altogether impossible. Likewise a man may safely say and affirm, that the virgin Marie was the mother of our Saviour Christ, as he is God and man in one person: the reason is, because that even from the very moment of his blessed conception in the womb of the virgin, the Godhead and the manhood, 
Romans. 9.5.  were inseparably joined and knit together in that one person jesus Christ, who is God over all, to be blessed for ever and ever. But if hereupon a man would infer, therefore she is or may be called the mother of God, besides that he should speak against the grounds and principles of sound faith, which teacheth us, that as christ in respect of his manhood was without father, so in respect of his godhead he was without mother, he should speak very proudly of flesh & blood, and very basely of God, as though that the creature, were in time before the creator, or God could not be without the help of poor and weak women.  
4 To deal with the reservation, circumgestation, or carrying it about, and with many other odd toys of their own invention, and largely lay out the inconveniences thereof, would require some proper and fit discourse for that purpose, but I will reserve it till another time, making haste now to handle that, which shallbe as the last, so in my judgement, not the least profitable part of this treaty, and that is, how a man should draw near unto such reverent mysteries, to god's glory, and his own good, and how he may best come, to reap and receive fruit and comfort by the same, specially sith it pleaseth God, to offer to him such excellent graces thereby, wherein I mind not to deal largely, because, as you see thorough all this discourse, I profess brevity and shortness, and to deal fully & perfectly I can not, both by reason of the excellency of the things to be handled, and also by mean of the maim, that we find in our knowledge in this life, in which we know in part, 
1. Corinth 13.9.  and prophecy in part, as the Apostle saith. And yet not to say somewhat, sith the Lord hath made me to feel somewhat, were not only to deface the graces that God in the riches of his mercy, hath bestowed upon me poor and miserable wretch that I am, but to defraud my good brethren, and the people of God, of some either profitable instruction, or sweet comfort, that the Lord hath been pleased to acquaint me withal: wherein setting God's glory, chiefly before mine eyes, and the good of his children, I will, trusting in the multitude of his mercies assay, to utter that little, that I myself in some measure feel in this matter.  
The things, that every man, is principally to deal in, concerning this point, may, in my mind, be well reduced, into three short heads or titles.  
first, because no man is to do a thing without deep consideration before hand of the matter he taketh in hand, we are to see what he is to perform, before the communicating or receiving of this Sacrament, and this I will call in one term, preparation.  
secondly, because in the action and execution of every good and lawful thing, a man is to have his mind wholly bend and set upon the same, we are to weigh, what he is to do or think upon, in the time, and at the very instant of receiving, and this I will name meditation.  
Thirdly, because there is no good thing so well done, but the pleasure or profit in time afterward, may thereby redound to the doer yea because there is nothing so well done by men, but that by reason of the imperfection of man's nature, some thing must still be added, we are to look what he is to do, after the time of receiving, and this I will call action or practice.  
Preparation which is the first, respecteth either God or man. Now that which concerneth God, is comprehended under sound knowledge, true faith, & unfeigned repentance, as that which concerneth man is comprised under sincere love. And I call them sound, true, unfeigned, and sincere, & yet not perfect, because perfection properly signifying that, unto which nothing can be added, can not be found in man, during this natural life of his. And this I speak, partly to stop the mouths of such as dream of a perfection in this life, to gross an error to be largely confuted, because God's word is most plain in that behalf, & the manifold imperfections, of those that would seem most perfect, do plentifully improve the same: and partly, as in a comfortable sort to teach us, that our imperfections should not hinder us, from drawing nigh thereto, (so that we do not foster and feed ourselves in them) seeing that otherwise the sacrament should stand us in no steed, if we were not unperfect, because it is a holy help, and singular succour ordained by God himself, against our natural infirmity and weakness.  
1 By knowledge I understand not any humane sciences, or worldly faculties, or a mean insight into the grounds of christian religion, but an assured understanding, as of the most material points of our faith, (for example, of the unity of the godhead, of the Trinity in the persons, of the names, nature, person and offices of our saviour etc.) so specially of this point of the lords supper itself, (for be it far from us, to know others, and to be ignorant in that whereof we are to be partakers) we keeping ourselves far off and free, from all erroneous opinions, either of Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or any such like, either besides or against the will of God, revealed in his word: which as it must only be the direction of all our actions, so must it always be the rule of our religion alone. And this sound knowledge of the grounds and principles of christian religion, and that in such sort as god hath revealed them unto us in his word, must of necessity go before all other things, both because it is as a man would say, the foundation to the house, & the root to the tree, and also because if we know not the good will and pleasure of our GOD, we can never either believe or do the same: for even as in worldly matters, if men be set about the things, they have no skill in, they know not where to begin, or how to proceed, or when to make an end, so in spiritual things, they are much more blind and backward, for in outward things of this life, men may somewhat be helped, by the light of reason, and the liveliness of their own wit, but in the matters of God, the more they rely or lean upon that, the further off they are from attaining the truth, because the Apostle telleth us, that the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God, 
1. Corinth. 2.14.  for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned. 
Roman. 8.7.  And in another place: the wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  
2 By faith I mean, not only a general belief, of all the canonical books of the old & new testament, or a grounded knowledge alone, of the points & principles of christian religion, & the truth thereof, for many wicked men proceed so far, and the Apostle james telleth us, 
james 2.19.  that the devils believe and tremble, but an assured persuasion, and particular application, as of all these things whatsoever, that the Lord hath revealed in his word, so specially of his promises contained in the same, concerning either this life, or the life to come (for though our faith do generally respect the whole word, yet is it most specially directed to the promises that god hath made us in Christ, 
2. Corinth. 1.20.  in whom all the promises of God are, yea and amen) every particular person being fully assured, and certainly persuaded of this, that as the Lord hath done and promised the same, to, and for others, so hath he done and promised it, particularly, to, and for himself. So that we may plainly perceive, that this faith is necessary, to every one that shall communicate, both because that otherwise they being on the earth, can not take hold of Christ in heaven, and steadfastly apply him and all his merits to themselves, that so he may become the spiritual food of their souls, nourishing them in the most certain hope of eternal salvation (for faith is it by which alone, they may appropriate unto themselves particularly, Christ jesus and all his graces, to the assured feeling of the free pardon and full forgiveness of all their sins on the one side, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness on the other side) and also that thereby, they may be fully certified in their own consciences, that that which they do, either in the administration or participation of that holy action, or Sacrament of the lords body and blood, is acceptable before GOD, and profitable to themselves, because without faith it is impossible to please him, 
hebrews. 11.6. Roman. 14.23.  and again: Whatsoever is not of faith, that self same is sin: which properties indeed, or effects rather, if a man surely have, they shall make his faith to differ, from all the vain imaginations and swimming conceits, of devils and wicked men whatsoever.  
3 By repentance I understand, a holy alteration and change of our minds (for good reason is there, that where sin beginneth, from thence also should proceed our conversion or turning to GOD) consisting of a sincere hatred of all our former sins and iniquities whatsoever both general and particular, and of a sound love, of all righteousness and well-doing, both general and particular: all which must in us proceed from the right reverence and loving fear, of the majesty of almighty God in our hearts, which holy affection doth every day by little and little work in us, the forsaking of ourselves, and the subduing of the sinful lusts and affections of our own flesh, to the end we may wholly resign and give over ourselves, to be guided and governed by the spirit of God, in the sincere service and worship of his majesty, and in the Christian performance of the holy duties of charity one of us towards an other, we ourselves, not only standing up and striving against our general iniquities, but also against our particular sins, yea against these special transgressions, that most prevail in us against the good will of our God: whereby no doubt God shall be greatly glorified, whilst he maketh his mighty power to appear, in strengthening our wonderful weakness, against some particular wickedness, and we ourselves shall reap comfort, assuring ourselves of this, that he that hath strengthened us against some one sin, will also assist us against other, and so make the good works that he hath begun in us, 
Philip. 1.6.  perfect, even until the day of Christ. So that hereby we may see, that he which feeleth himself truly and unfeignedly changed, in the affections of his mind, for his former iniquities, not only loathing his sins, but even himself for his sins sake, and carrieth with him this holy purpose, never, thorough god's assistance to commit the same, or any such like against GOD or men, may, not only be assured of his unfeigned repentance, and so by consequent of the forgiveness of his sins, but also with boldness, and yet notwithstanding with reverence in respect of GOD, and with humbleness of mind, in respect of himself, may draw near to the partaking of those holy mysteries.  
4 By love, which is the thing that concerneth men, I do not only understand, the unfeigned pardoning and forgiving of others, that have any manner of way trespassed against us, but also sound reconciliation after offences committed, one of us towards an other, yea I mean further by love, which properly is an inward affection of the heart, the sincere and outward testifying of the same by words, deeds, countenances, and other means, as the Lord shall give occasion, and our ability serve to express the same, and that not unto our friends only, 
Matth. 5.46, 47.  (for what great thing do we if we love them that love us? But generally to all men, though unto some in greater measure, 
Galat. 6.10.  as to the household of faith, our wives, children, and parents, &c: and to some in less measure, as to those that be yet without, and be somewhat further off by nature and kindred, yea, and to our enemies also, which is somewhat more▪ against which, because we do wholly strive while we are in the corruption of our nature, and be wonderfully backward to the same, even then when GOD hath in some measure advanced our regeneration in us, there lying lurking within us the cinders of Hatred and Dislike, ready to break forth into a flame, as occasion and matter shall be ministered, we shall do very well to gather as many reasons to induce us to the practice thereof, as possibly we can, that so by them, as it were by strong cords, we may be drawn and tied, as a man would say, to the execution of the same. First therefore we have GOD in sundry places of his word, laying that duty upon us, 
Matth. 5.44. Luke 6.27, 24.  To love them that hate us, to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that persecute us. secondly, we have his own example concurring with his commandment, he practising the same to us, that he would have us to do to others, namely, loving us, when we were and are his enemies. 
Roman. 5.10. Matth. 5.45. 1. john 4.10.  thirdly, we have the example of our Saviour Christ, clothed with one nature accomplishing the same, praying also to the Father to forgive them, 
Luke 23.34.  that put him to death. And lest any man should think, that that which Christ did in this case, would not be performed in and by them, either by reason of Christ's singular excellency, or the difficulty and impossibility of the thing itself, the Lord hath in the fourth place, for the overcoming of that temptation, set before us sundry of his servants, who being men like unto us, in all respects, 
Acts 7. 6●  have yet notwithstanding in the days of their flesh done the same, as we see particularly in Stephan. fiftly, the very Sacrament itself, and the elements in the same lead us thereto, 
1. Corinth. 10.17  For we that are many are one bread and one body, because we are all partakers of one bread at the lords board, even as that bread we eat of there, is made of many grains, and yet maketh but one loaf. lastly, our own good should carry us forward to this, because thereby we provide well for ourselves, that so we might feel the forgiveness of our sins before GOD, our Saviour telling us in plain words, 
Matth. 6.14.  That if we do forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive us. And though it be true, that we can and do greatly aggravate other men's sins against us, as for example, he hath taken away my good name, he hath spoiled me of my goods, he hath killed my father, husband, children, and a thousand such like: and what heinous offences be these? Yet if GOD would give us grace, uprightly to look into our own sins, committed either against other men, or Gods own majesty, we shall find, that we have good cause offered, to be ready to remit: For if men offend us, we do in as great points offend others. And though that were not true, yet we cannot deny, but that we do more highly displease Almighty GOD than men can, or do displease us, and that not only in the notoriousness of our sins, but even in a daily and continual course of iniquity, and in an infinite multitude of transgressions also. What a fearful thing will this be in our own hearts, that we would gladly have God merciful unto us, in forgiving most grievous and innumerable transgressions, and we will not remit small offences, and sins seldom times committed? By this we do nothing else but cast away the sure seal and earnest penny, as it were, that our sins are forgiven us before GOD, and refuse a certain pledge, that our prayers and all other good things that come from us, are in Christ's obedience accepted in his sight, yea, and most injuriously tread under our filthy feet, God's word, God's example, God's sacraments, and many other tokens of his grace, and lastly, pull upon us a fearful vengeance from God, to be manifested in this life, and in the life to come. And therefore I beseech all the godly, that have care of their salvation, to look heedily to this point.  
Meditation, which is the second thing, and is to be used specially in the time of the celebration of the lords Supper, consisteth chiefly in these points, to wit, in regarding the outward elements of the lords Supper, that is to say, the bread and the wine, and in considering the rites used, in, and about the same, as the breaking of the Bread and the pouring forth of the Wine, and so forth. For though the outward things are not the matters that we should stand upon, yet, because by them, it pleaseth the Lord, as it were, by the hand, to lead us unto right excellent things, namely, by them to set forth unto our Souls, the crucifying of Christ's body, the shedding of his blood, and so forth, and all for our transgressions, that therefore they should not be slightly passed over, without very deep and due consideration of the same. And then because we must not stay below on the earth, nor be busied in beholding of earthly things only, but must by faith rise up to heaven as it were, there to behold the abundant riches of Gods spiritual graces, offered and given to the faithful, in, with, & by the outward elements, we are thoroughly to weigh what great mercies the Lord setteth before us, in that holy and spiritual banquet, which though partly for the worthiness of the giver, and partly also for the excellency of themselves, as also by the want and weakness of our blind and dull understanding, they cannot be sufficiently conceived, much less uttered, may yet in my mind be brought into these four points following, as most material and principal.  
1 God setteth before our eyes in that holy action, first Christ's death and passion, together with the benefits & effects which we reap thereby, and namely the remission and full forgiveness of all our sins, together with the imputation of Christ's righteousness unto us, and the assured possession of eternal life: for we do no more verily behold the bread broken, and the wine poured forth in our bodily sight and presence, than we do or aught by the eye of our faith, to behold the body of Christ crucified, and his blood shed upon the cross, for the forgiveness of our sins: neither are we more fully or particularly put in possession of the bread and wine, when we have eaten and drunk the same, than we are of Christ and all his merits, than when by a lively and steadfast faith we lay hold of him, and the most excellent graces, that in him are offered unto us, applying them all particularly to our own souls, which yet that they might be more effectually pledged up in us, it pleased the Lord to appoint, not only that the bread should be broken, and the wine poured forth, but that every one of us, should severally by himself, and for himself, take it, eat it, and drink it, &c: that so we might be in the more full and assured possession of him and his graces.  
2 secondly, the Lord pledgeth out unto us thereby, that full and spiritual nourishment, that through Christ we have, both in the outward and inward man, even to the hope and fruition of eternal life: for even as verily, as that bread and wine doth seem to strengthen our outward man: so even as verily, yea more verily by much, doth Christ and is graces nourish our souls: yea I say more verily, because that though some part of the bread and wine we receive, be turned into our healthful and profitable nourishment, and is become as it were part of our substance, yet some of it also passeth thorough the paunch into the privy, but Christ remaineth always a most holy and sound nutriment unto our souls, no part of him vanishing away, but having rather this effect in us, that he is not only turned into our substance, as the bodily elements are in respect of our outward man, but rather wholly turning us, as a man would say, into his most holy and blessed substance, he being not only a plentiful, but a pleasant nourishment also, bringing always with him that effect to our souls, that the outward elements do to our bodies, namely giving them all spiritual strength, and inward comfort, 
john. 15.5.  because without him, we have nothing, nor can do any thing.  
3 thirdly, by this means the Lord propoundeth unto us, the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his church, we and he making but one body of his holy congregation, he being the head thereof, and we the particular members: by which also, as we are instructed, in our holy duties towards him, we attempting nothing that may tend to the prejudice, hurt, or grief of our holy head, but endeavouring every thing that may be good and acceptable before him, so we comfortably conceive the great and continual care he hath for us, he performing more effectually by much, the duty of headship unto his spiritual body the church, than a natural head, doth, or can to a natural body, namely, not only in devising for the good thereof, both in general and in particular, but also in yielding sense and moving unto the whole body, and every several member thereof, yea, quickening the same, and giving together with the understanding of heavenly care and conscience, yea, some measure of strength and power to walk therein, 
Ephes. 3.12.  so that He dwelling in our hearts by Faith, we are thereby not only become members of his body, of his flesh, and of his blood, but also he maketh us zealous, prepared, and fruitful in every good work, both towards the Lord, and one of us towards an other.  
4 fourthly and lastly, the Lord delivereth unto us in the use of his supper, that holy unity and agreement, both outward and inward, of body and mind, that is and aught to be known, felt and continued amongst all the members of his church, whatsoever, or wheresoever they be. For even as the bread that we are partakers of, is made of many grains, & yet maketh but one loaf, as we see, & as the wine that we drink at the Lords table, is made of many grapes, and yet maketh but one wine: so all the faithful people, not only of one place & parish, but dispersed through out the whole earth (notwithstanding that some through the riches of God's mercies have attained more graces than other some) make in deed but one holy body of the church. Neither doth our being of several members one of us to another, any more hinder our growth in this same spiritual fellowship, than the variety of members in a natural body hindereth the constituting and making of the whole body itself, nay rather, as we may well perceive, it furthereth the same: for as the whole cannot be said to be whole but in respect of all the parts whereof it consisteth, no more can this whole or holy body of the church, & every particular congregation throughout the world, concurring to the establishing thereof: and yet so notwithstanding, that the name church may as rightly be attributed to every several society of the faithful, as the word earth to every part of the earth, or to speak of the elements of the supper, the word bread, and the word wine, to every part of the bread & wine used in the same.  
The third and last thing, is that which I called before, action, and is to be performed, as generally all the days of our life, so particularly and specially after the receiving of the Lords supper. And though this come in the last place, yet is it not a matter of the least importance, nay rather it is of such great weight, that the former without it, be little available: for even as in all human sciences, knowledge, though it be never so exquisite, is without action & practise commonly counted but a vain conceit, so in spiritual understanding, that is much more true, because if a man know never so much of God's mercies, and meditate never so deeply in the same, yet if that by the same he be not lead, as it were, by the hand, both humbly to praise God for them, and heartily pray unto him, for the continuance and increase of them, with grace to embrace them, and to use them well, it is to himself and others as if it were nothing. Now this matter that we call action consisteth:  
1 First, in earnest prayer unto God, not only for a clear sight of the graces offered, because we are blind to perceive them, but also for a lively and continual feeling of the same, because we do easily choke and smother them up, yea, for the plentiful fructifying of the word of God, and his sacraments in our hearts, because we ourselves be barren and ill ground, and can hardly bring forth good fruit, though we have have very much cost and labour bestowed upon us. And this duty must be performed, not for the time present alone, as whilst we are in the public exercises, or for the day of communicating only, returning afterwards as filthy swine to our former wallow, or unclean dogs to our vomit again: for alas what will that avail us, but to a more fearful judgement, and just condemnation, because we continue in sin, & abuse the means of our sanctification and purging, but even for the whole race and course of our lives, that as there is no day nor hour of a day going over our heads, wherein we stand not in need of some blessing from the Lord, so there should few times escape us, wherein we would not do to God this duty, that we believe to be acceptable to him, because he hath commanded it, and so profitable unto ourselves, because it reacheth unto every part and period, or state of our whole life.  
2 Secondly, in humble thanksgiving, as for all the unestimable riches and treasures of grace and goodness generally: which it pleaseth him in his Church, and namely by the use of his word and sacraments, not only to offer, but also to bestow upon his people, so specially for the death and obedience of his Son, the blessing of all blessings, that is to say, the most excellent blessing, the Lord bestowing thereby upon us all graces both bodily & spiritually: bodily, as the sanctification of all his creatures unto us, which otherwise we continuing in our sins (as we must needs have done, if Christ had not died for us) should have been unclean unto us: and spiritual, as the forgiveness of our sins, the imputation of Christ's righteousness (which we must of necessity believe, because otherwise God may as well-condemne us for want of righteousness, as for our notorious transgressions) and many such other particulars before recited. And that we may be the better provoked to this great duty of thankfulness, it shall be good for us, not only to allot unto ourselves sometime in every day, wherein we will take a view so far forth as we can, of all the graces of God both general and particular, bestowed upon ourselves & others, but also deeply to consider, first the person that giveth the same, who is the Lord of heaven and earth, merciful no doubt even unto thousands of generations, to them that love him, and keep his commandments: secondly the excellency of the things bestowed, which besides that they are bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal, arise to such a huge number, in the several sorts and great variety of them that are not able to think of them, or any one of them, according to their worthiness, much less to account or number them: and thirdly to consider ourselves receiving them, to whom the Lord freely and of his own goodness, giveth these great mercies, not only when we had not deserved the least of them, but even then when every one of us, had deserved eternal death and condemnation to be poured forth upon us and ours.  
3 And lastly in care and conscience of a most holy and christian conversation, that seeing we are in the holy Supper made partakers by faith of Christ's death and resurrection, and that we fully persuade ourselves by the truth of the word, 
Roman. 4.25.  that he did not only die for our sins, and rise for our righteousness, but also performed that excellent and great work to teach us, 
Roman. 6.1. Coloss. 3.1.  by his death to die to ungodliness, and by his resurrection to rise up to that holiness, that may be acceptable before God, profitable to our brethren, and comfortable to ourselves, we having by that means, and to that end our spiritual life and being from him, that therefore we should live soberly, righteously, 
Titus. 2.12.  and godly in this present evil world, and that in the sound affections of our hearts before God, and in words and deeds before men, that when it shall please him to finish the days of our wearisome pilgrimage, we steadfastly looking for that blessed hope, and full-fruition of eternal life, may be glorified with him in eternal blessedness: which thing the Lord grant us, even for his crucified Christ's sake, to whom, with the Father, and the Holy ghost, three persons and one eternal God, be given all honour praise, power & glory, both of us and of all people, even now and at all times for ever and ever: So be it.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

TO THE READER.  
AT the motion and request of sundry my dear friends in the Lord, I have thought good to put down these two prayers following, not thereby minding, either to tie any person to the use of these only (for they may according to their several necessities, conceive some other of their own, or practise some better form already set forth, by men of greater gifts or feeling) nor yet so to busy their minds, and to occupy their heads, as that they should be employed in these, when the public prayers and exercises of the church, performed by the ministers, are in hand (for be it far from us, when the minister (God's mouth) speaketh from the Lord to us, or when he as our mouth, speaketh to the Lord for us, to have either our hearts or our mouths occupied about any other thing, than the reverend hearing and consenting unto, of such things as he uttereth.) But that aiding the infirmity of our brethren, such as have not the gift to conceive prayer, and shall think this fit for themselves, might have a form to exercise themselves in, both before they repair to the public exercises of the church, and also after the celebration and partaking of these reverend mysteries shall be finished.   

A PRAYER TO BE SAID BEFORE a man repair to the partaking of the Lords supper.  
O Eternal God, and most merciful father, I thy poor and unworthy servant do humbly beseech thee in jesus Christ thy dear sons name, and for his sake, graciously through his death and obedience, to pardon and forgive me all my sins whatsoever, which at any time, by thought, word, or deed, I have, through negligence, ignorance, or knowledge, committed against thy divine majesty, or any other. And because both by reason of the cursed corruption of mine own nature, and the infinite multitude of my sins also, I am slow & dull of heart to believe, seal up in my soul I pray thee O Lord, this great benefit of the free pardon & full forgiveness of all my sins, by the assured testimony of thy blessed spirit, bearing record unto my spirit that I am thy child, and by unfeigned parddoning and forgiving of others, which any manner of way have offended against me. Yea make the death and resurrection of thy son so powerful & effectual in me, that I may not only feel and find in the same, the forgiveness of all my sins, both general and particular, and the hope of eternal salvation, but also that I may be instructed thereby, all the days of my life, more and more to die unto sin, and daily more & more to live unto righteousness of life and holy conversation. And forasmuch as through thy goodness, I have purposed this day to communicate, in the use of thy blessed word and sacraments, I beseech thee (good father) to pierce mine ears, to prepare my heart, yea and so to direct all the parts and powers of my body and soul, that I may not only reverently and profitably hearken to thy voice, speaking unto me out of thy word, labouring all the days of my life to conform myself to the knowledge, faith, and obedience of the same, but also that I may assuredly be made partaker of the fruits and effects of the death and passion of thy dear son, which it pleaseth thee in that holy sacrament, to offer unto me. To this end and purpose I beseech thee to grant, that I be not carried away in the contemplation and consideration of the earthly and corruptible things, objected therein to my senses, but that my faith may be set up & raised to the spiritual beholding, assured feeling, and full fruition of these graces, which it pleaseth thee by the same to offer unto me. Give me grace (good Lord) to bring with me a steadfast faith in the truth of thy promises, that by it, as by an eye, I may look upon, and by the same, as by a hand, I may apprehend jesus Christ thy son, sitting at thy right hand, to be my only and continual justifier, sanctifier and redeemer. Grant me grace also to bring with me, as an earnest hatred of all my former evils whatsoever, so a sincere love of all righteousness and well doing, that I by the power of thy spirit, crucifying the old man, with the lusts and concupiscences thereof, specially such as bear the greatest sway in me, may be strengthened in the new man, daily to think, speak, and do those things which may be acceptable and well pleasing in thy godly presence. And I beseech thee further, to give me grace to bring with me, sound & sincere love towards all men, yea even towards mine enemies, that I may not only forget and forgive all the injuries & wrongs that they have devised, said or done against me, but also pray earnestly unto thy majesty for them, and purchase and procure