A SERMON Preached in the Cathedrall Church of york, against Popish Transubstantiation, and their Communion under one kind, the first Sunday in Lent, Ann. Dom. 1607.  
By THOMAS DODSON, master of Artes.  ieremy, 6. vers. 16. 
Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the ways and behold, and ask for the old way, which is the good way and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls: but they said, Wee will not walk therein.  
Imp●●nted at London by H. L. for matthew Lown●●, 〈…〉 to be sold at his shop in Paules Churchyard, at the sign of the bishops head. 160●.   

TO THE REVEREND AND worshipful Gentlewoman, mistress catherine● FOWBERIE widow, his very loving Mother in Law, health and true happiness in this life, and in the life to come, through Iesus Christ.  
BEfore I could be resolved( Right Christian, and most dear Mother) to handle this Text, I was driven into a doubtful meditation, by reason of a double consideration. For considering that I was to speak before great men, in a great auditory: I doubted, whether it should bee more expedient, to teach from this Text non-communicants to forsake their former errors, and to renounce their superstitious vanities; or to invite from another Text all in general to a Lents Potation. Whereof thus musing and meditating, I became in the end resolved, to make choice of this Text rather, not onely in regard that the feast of Easter draweth near: but in respect especially, that some even ex meis intimis, otherwise virtuously inclined, are not rightly resolved how to eat the Lords Bread at the Lords Table, and to drink of his Cup. Concerning whose wilful blindness, and blind wilfulness, sparing to speak I sigh to see, and rue to know, what I fully know: onely I protest before God, calling in this Sermon both the holy Scriptures, and holy Fathers to witness, that either there is no truth, or else that the points of popery( which non-communicants, like halting hypocrites, now embrace) are most false. Which rude Sermon and simplo, but such as it is, vpon the assurance of your known courtesy, and to the end especially that a scantling hereby of that religion, which once( O happy conversion!) you professed, may be taken; I now offer in way of thankfulness for vndeserued kindnesses, and in token of great gratitude due unto your Worship. Accept therefore( right virtuous & ever kind Mother) I humbly beseech you this poor present, and present exercise, as a poor spark of great good will: wherein if any good thing be found, give God( I pray you) the glory; if any fault, impute it unto me: and pray unto God, that either I never speak, or else speak to his glory. Thus beseeching the God of all grace, the Author, and giver of all good gifts, to grant unto your Worship increase of spiritual graces, and continuance of bodily health, with wealth and welfare in this life present and in the life to come everlasting blessedness; I leave you, and your meditation vpon this Sermon, to the guidance & gracious assistance of the almighty whom I beseech so to bless you in reading, as that being thoroughly resolved, how to receive Christs holy Mysteries, you may steadfastly stand in the right profession of Christian religion, and ever wish the prosperity of them that love it, and labour for it: which the Lord in mercy grant unto every Christian subject.  
Goodmaudam in yorkshire, this last of March, 1608. By him that is unworthy of your 
 motherly favour, yet devoted 
 to honour you, 
 Thomas Dodson.   

To the Reader.  
CHristian Reader, I haue here set down( so near as I could remember) whatsoever was spoken in delivering this Sermon: yea, and more matter then the time suffered; but not more then was purposed to bee uttered. For being graced beyond expectation with the gracious presence of the most reverend Father in God the Lord Archb. of york his Grace, after his pains taken according to godliness elsewhere in the city; I was in regard thereof rather contented abruptly to end, then to be troublesone: whereupon partly, but especially to profit such abroad as having ears to hear, and souls to save, do want instruction, I became resolved to pen this my then exercise, and to put it into print. Now judge not rashly( gentle Reader) I most hearty desire thee, in that I being the unworthiest of many hundreds, and the vnablest of many thousands, haue taken vpon me to set forth, and to publish any thing, to the open light and sight of the world: for wee know, that the poor widows mite( where God is made umpire) shall not bee refused. And the Lord the searcher of the harts and reins, knoweth my purpose and affection in preaching and publishing this matter: wherein, if any thing be amiss( my amiss once discovered by the pen of the learned) peccavi shal be my Plea: for haereticum me esse nolo. Thus I leave thee, committing this my simplo labour unto the blessing of Gods holy spirit: who grant us a right understanding heart, with a charitable friendly Iudgement in all things.  
T. D.   
MATH. 26. 26, 27. Iesus took the bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. Also he took the cup, and when he had given thankes, he gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, &c. 
IT is not mine intent( most reverend Father, Right Honourable, Right worshipful, and in the Lord beloved) to speak any thing at this time concerning the Author of this Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, concerning the time when it was ordained, concerning the end why it was ordained, or concerning any other circumstances hereunto belonging; but onely so far forth, as the controversy between us and the papists shall lead me. Which controversy and dissension may not bee passed over without diligent examination, and due consideration, considering that our aduersaries in their gross and absurd opinion, rent with their teeth him that made them, and so dishonour him, whom they ought to honour. Now, all the reason that they build vpon, is but the words onely of the Institution. Christ said, This is my body: Ergo say they, it is his body. Whereunto I might answer, that by like argument they may prove as well that Christ is a door; because he saith I am that door: or that he is a natural Vine; because he saith, I am that true Vine. But answering 
John, 10, 9. & 15. 1.  I do say with Saint jerome, That the gospel standeth not in the bare words of the Scriptures but in the meaning. As also answering, I do say with Saint Augustine, that there is nothing spoken obscurely in one place of Scripture, which is not made plain and very clear in some other: And that therefore wee may not( like men factious rather then religious) bring our own senses to the reading of the Scriptures; but wee are to take the sense that the Scripture giveth, by conferring one Scripture with another: for otherwise, to take a figurative speech properly and according to the letter, destroyeth the soul. Saint Augustine in his book De doctrina Christiana, giveth diverse learned Lessons, whereby to know a figurative speech; one of which lessons is this: If the Scripture seemeth to command a wicked thing & ungodly, or to forbid a thing that charity requireth, then know( saith he) that the speech is figurative. According to which rule, and direction, Christ his words in the Institution of this Sacrament are to bee understood figuratively: for, Christ commanding at his last Supper to eat his body and to drink his blood, seemed to command in sound of words an inconvenience and a wicked thing. Yea, to say that the bread is Christes body in proper speech and according to the letter, is horrible blasphemy: for if bread in proper speech bee the flesh of Christ, then bread is also the seed of david: then bread was fastened to the cross for our sins: then bread 
blushy at this ye papists.  was butted, rose the third day from death, and now sitteth in heaven at the right hand of GOD the Father: yea, if bread be Christ, then is bread the Son of God, and second person in the sacred Trinity. Nay, no question if bread bee truly and properly Christ according to a literal and carnal construction: then( besides these monstrous impieties, which cannot be avoyded) it must needs ensue, that really wee eat Christes flesh in the sacrament with our mouths, & actually drink his blood with our lips; which is a thing heinous and horrible in Christian religion & behaviour: yea, as S. Augustine avoucheth, It is more horrible to eat mans flesh thē to kill it, and to drink mans blood thē to  shed it. But some peradventure objecting will say, that Christ said, My flesh is meate indeed, and 
joh. 6.  my blood is drink indeed. whereunto in answering, it behoveth to make a difference between the body of Christ and the Sacrament of his body, least wee bee deceived, and take one for another. And therefore 
Note this difference. Tra. 26. In joh.  I do say with Saint Augustine, that the Sacrament( of Christs body) is received of some unto life, and of some unto destruction: but the thing itself( that is, the flesh of Christ) whereof this is a Sacrament, is received of all men unto life, and of no man to destruction; yea, his flesh is so truly meate, and his blood is so truly drink, as that whosoever doubteth of this wee hold him accursed: but, for what part of man( soul, or body) this meat was provided, in this stands the difference between us and the papists. They say, for the body, no less then for the soul: wee say for the soul, and not for the body: Now to make this point plain on our side, and so to end this controversy; if their mouths bee not far out of taste, I will plainly prove by testimonies of the holy Scriptures, as also of the holy ancient Fathers, that Christ his flesh and blood is sustenance not for the body, but onely for the soul. do you not know( saith Christ) that whatsoever thing from without 
Mar. 7.  entereth into a man, cannot defile him: because it entereth not into his hart, but into the belly. Whereby it appeareth even in the iudgement of our saviour, that nothing can enter both the heart and the belly: but the flesh of Christ entereth into the heart: Ergo, not into the belly. Saint Paul likewise saith, meats 
1. Cor. 6.  are ordained for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God will destroy both it, and them: but the body of Christ God will not destroy: it is therefore no meate for the belly. To bee short, that which doth either defile or sanctify, is not meat for the belly: for meats do not commend us unto God, 1. Cor. 8. 8. But Christ with his blood doth sanctify, Heb. 13, 12. Ergo, Christ his flesh and blood is not meate for the belly.  
Other arguments to this effect, and to set forth the truth hereof, I could use many: but let these and all other proofs bee void, if the learned ancient Fathers do not hereunto subscribe, and even conclude the very same point. Saint Chrysostome saith, Christ is the Bread, which feedeth not the body, but 
Chrysost. In Mat. 9.  the soul, and filleth not the belly, but the mind. Ambrose, he is not bodily, but ghostly meate. Augustine, It is not lawful to devour Christ with teeth. Prepare not your jaws, but your heartes. 
Aug. de cons. Dist. 2. Cypr. de. Coena Dom.  And Saint Cyprian saith, The body of Christ is cibus mentis, non ventris, is meate for the mind, not for the belly: not for the teeth to chew, but for the soul to beleeue. The testimony of all which good and lawful witnesses, is sufficient to remove us from the corporal eating of Christs flesh with teeth and jaws. indeed touching the visible part of this Sacrament, as the bread and wine, which is seen with eyes, felt with hands, and bruised with teeth, of that there is no doubt, but it entereth our mouths and resteth in our bowels: but to say, that the natural flesh of Christ entereth the mouth, or passeth down the throat, or lodgeth in the stomach, is a position( as you haue heard) altogether repugnant both to the holy Scriptures, and holy Fathers. But our aduersaries the papists being willing to press the truth, though they cannot oppress it, will peradventure object and say, Christ is almighty and can do all things; therefore being 
A possibili ad esse, non valet consequentia.  able to turn bread into his body at his last Supper, he did it. Whereunto I might reply, that GOD was able to make us Swine, sheep, Oxen, Horses, frogs, Dogges, &c. yet he hath not done so: But answering, I do say, that though God is able to do whatsoever he will, yet he will do none of those things that bee not in him of their own nature. Sith then, that GOD is true of his own nature, he can do nothing, that is against his word: not because that he is not able to do it, but because his Power doth never ouertwharte and cross his Will. indeed he is almighty in working his will: but not in changing his nature; for that which he will not, that he doth not: and therefore to imagine what wee list, and then to father our falsehoods on Christes almighty power, is error, impiety, yea, insolent blasphemy. But passing over this Popish argument from can to will, whereupon no argument followeth: I will now plainly prove by the word of truth, and testimony also of ancient Writers, that the bread in the Sacrament is not the substance, but a sign of Christes body: and that the nature of it remaineth( howsoever the popish sort jangle) after the words of consecration. Christ at his last Supper took nothing but bread, he broke nothing but bread, he gave into the hands of his Disciples, to eat, nothing but bread, and ( as appeareth by my Text) he called nothing his body, but even the same bread, which he had taken, which he had broken, and which he gave unto them. Now, in thus calling the bread his body, it was in mystery and figure, not in nature and substance: and therefore it is but as if he had said, This bread which I haue in my hands is a sign of my body which shortly after shall bee crucified, and delivered unto death for your salvation. To which effect, after this manner thus speaketh Saint Cyprian: Dedit dominus 
Cypr. de vnctione Chrismatis.  noster in mensa, in qua ultimum cum apostles participauit conuivium, &c. Our Lord at the Table, whereat he received his last Supper with his Disciples, gave with his own hands bread and wine: but vpon the cross, he gave his own body to be wounded by the hands of the souldiers. Where he maketh a difference between that which Christ gave vpon the cross, and that which he gave at the Table: at the Table he gave bread and wine; vpon the cross, he gave his body and blood. Likewise else where, he calleth the bread after consecration, Panem ex multorum granorum adunatione congestum. Bread made of the substance, and moulding of many cornes. whereunto Saint Augustine subscribing, thus 
Aug in Psal. 98.  speaketh in the person of Christ: This body which you see you shall not eat, neither shall you drink the blood which they that crucify me shall shed: I haue commended a Sacrament unto you, which spiritually understood shall quicken you. But to bee short, Saint paul,( who setteth forth fully and most effectually both the doctrine and right use of the Lords Supper) is well worthy to decide this controversy, where diuers times in one piece of a Chapter after the words of consecration he repeats 
1. Cor. 11.  the word, Bread. In conclusion therefore it must needs follow and bee granted, strive the pieuish and perverse papists never so much against it, that the name of the thing signified is given in this place to the sign itself: which is a figure, not strange or new; but usual and common, where mention is made of Sacraments: for, the lord, speaking of Circumcision, calleth it the covenant: yet circumcision is not the 
Gen. 17.  covenant, but a sign of the covenant. And the paschal lamb is called the Lords Passeouer, though it was not the Passeouer, but the sign of the Passeouer, 
Exod. 12.  & served onely to put men in remenbrance of that benefit; as it is afterward expounded: but leaving the holy scriptures, I will now prove the very same point by the authority of the holy Fathers. Saint Augustine in his book of Questions vpon Leuiticus, hath these words: Solet res quae significat, eius rei nomine quam significat, nuncupari. That is, The thing that 
Aug. supper Lev. quaest. 57.  doth signify, is wont to bee called by the name of the thing that it doth signify. And in the Epistle which he wrote to Bonifacius: Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta 
Idem ad Bonifacium. Epist. 13.  sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent: ex hac autem similitudine, plerunque etiam ipsarum nomina accipiunt. If the Sacraments( saith he) had not some certain similitude of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments: and of this similitude, many times they haue the names of those things themselves. Whereunto Theodoretus 
Theod. Dial. 1.  agreeth, and speaking of Christ thus subscribeth: he that did call his body wheat and bread, and himself a vine, doth honour the bread and wine with the name of his body, and blood, not changing the Nature, but adding grace unto the Nature. And Saint Chrysostome hath the very like words. Whereby 
Chrysost. ad Caesarium.  it appeareth, and even hereupon may rightly bee inferred, that the roman transubstantiators haue no ground of reason, to affirm that there is more transubstantiation in the Supper, by change of the substance of the signs, into the thing signified by the virtue of consecration, then in all the other Sacraments. For if there were such a change of substance, by the virtue of the sacramental words, and of the consecration of the signs, it should necessary then come to pass, that the same should bee in all Sacraments, 
Note well.  and not more in the one, then in the other; forsomuch as there is none at all that may bee Sacraments without consecration, and without sacramental words, and they haue all this common together, and the like reason is in them all, concerning this point. But to bee short, and yet for more full contentation, & even to give satisfaction to the simplest here present, that the sign is called by the name of the thing signified, and that there is no mutation in the substance of it, but onely in the use; I do for further proof in this behalf, appeal to the outward senses: as, to the eyes, nose, mouth, taste, hands, and even to the reason of man, what it is, that wee do receive, when wee come at the feast of Easter, and at other times to the Lords Table. Whereunto in answering if these senses jump and agree, that it is bread and wine consecrated to a holy and heavenly use; they verily speak the truth and lie not: for there was never any transubstantiation and conversion of one substance into another, but the outward senses judged it to be so. As for example, when the rod 
Exod. 4.  was turned into a Serpent, the Israelites saw it: And when water was turned into wine at a marriage, the guests saw it, and tasted it. But now in this Sacrament 
joh. 2. 8.  we do not see any such mutation: the bread being sanctified taketh not the form of flesh, neither doth the wine appear to be blood, but, as signs, do remain all one in quantity and quality, without alteration of substance. Whereby( beloved) albeit it appeareth, as also by that which formerly hath been delivered, that our construction concerning the words of the institution, is consonant & right agreeable not onely to learning and religion, but to common sense also and reason: yet utterly to overthrow the false doctrine of popish transubstantiation, and to put it out of doubt, that we eat not Christs body carnally as our aduersaries dream and grossly imagine, I will now overturn by force of arguments and sufficient reasons, the turning of the bread into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, though many as concerning this point( which yield from other points of superstition) do stick, and are very hard to be persuaded.  
That the substance of bread remaineth in the Sacrament 
The first reason against transubstantion.  after the words of consecration, I will first prove it from the definition of a Sacrament. For the Fathers do affirm it to consist of an earthly 
August. Chrysost.  thing, and of an heavenly thing: of the Word, and of the Element. Now for the element and earthly thing to bee taken away by transubstantiation, is against, and even utterly destroyeth, the very nature of a Sacrament. And therefore from the definition thereof wee are well taught and instructed, that the bread, which is the element and earthly thing, remaineth still in substance without alteration, as well after as before the consecration; according to this saying of Saint Augustine: The word cometh to the Element,( he saith not taketh away the Element) and so it is made a Sacrament.  
again, in baptism the substance of Water remaineth, 
The second reason.  though it hath words of consecration, and is made a Sacrament of our Regeneration: and therefore in the Lords Supper, the bread and wine are not changed and done away utterly: for the Scripture speaketh as highly of the one as of the other.  
again, if the Elements of bread and wine 
The third reason.  are converted into the very body and blood of Christ: then the very reprobates, as Iudas, should truly feed on the body and blood of Christ, and so should bee saved: but this is false, and flat against the Scripture; Ergo, there is not any such conversion.  
again, if the papists receive Christs body in 
The fourth reason.  the Sacrament, then they receive either his mortal, or his immortal body. If they say, they receive his mortal body: I might answer, that it cannot profit them; because mortal food, is but for this mortal life: but I answer, that CHRIST hath not a mortal body to communicate unto them; for it is now changed, and hath put on immortality. If they say, they receive his immortal, and glorified body, then like men slain with their own sword, they must fly from this their text, Hoc est corpus meum; because at the time when CHRIST spake these words to his Disciples he had no glorified body: for the Sacrament was instituted before his death, and his body was not glorified until after his resurrection.  
again, if the papists receive the very same 
The fift reason.  body of Christ in the sacrament, which he had from the virgin mary, and which was on the cross; thē it must haue the same natural properties of a Body which that had, as proportion of shape, distinction of partes, extension of quantity, circumscription of place, and the very same substance of flesh, which he took of his Mother mary: for these properties had Christes Body, that hung on the cross: but the bread( which they say, is turned into Christs Body) 
Note here a great absurdity.  is without these and such like properties of mans nature: Ergo, the bread is not turned really and substantially into the body of Christ which came from the virgin mary, and which was offered for us on the cross.  
again, the bread in the Sacrament after the 
The seventh reason.  words of consecration is subject to as many changes and chances as it was before: it may putrifie, and the wine may wax sharp and turn into vinegar; yea, both of them may be mingled with rank poison: but the precious Body & blood of Christ cannot be mingled with poison; but is an excellent counterpoison against all infection of sin whatsoever: the body of Christ cannot putrifie, the blood of Christ cannot become sharp or sour as the outward signs may: the substance therefore of bread & wine is not changed into the body and blood of Christ, but remaineth still, after the words of consecration.  
again, Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, 
The eight reason.  ( Hebrewes, 1.) and there shall remain, touching his humanity( as Saint Peter teacheth) until the time that all things bee restored which God hath spoken by his Prophets, Acts, 3. Ergo, Christ is not bodily present in the Sacrament: for it is against the nature of a natural body to be in more places then one at once. And therefore said Saint Augustine: Corpus domini in quo resurrexit, in uno loco esse oportet; veritas eius ubique diffusa est: the body of Christ in the which he rose can be but in one place, though his truth is dispersed every where.  
again, we are charged to do this in remenbrance 
The ninth reason. 1. Cor. 11.  of Christ; Do this( saith he) in remembrance of me, in remembrance of my benefit wrought for you, & in remembrance of your salvation purchased by me. Now, remembrance is not of things present, but of things absent.  
again, it is recorded in the same Chapter, that 
The tenth reason.  whensoever wee eat the Lords Bread and drink of his cup, wee are said but to show his death until he come: so that it is but a show and Representation of his Death, until his coming.  
Lastly( to omit many other reasons) wee beleeue 
The eleventh reason.  that Christ shall come from heaven, and from no other place to judge the quick and the dead, and that in the same manner he ascended: but if Christs body bee made of bread, he shall start out of the pyx, and not come from heaven; yea, and that in 
Note this well.  another shape then when he ascended. Which popish wonder, with other their strange devises, so savoureth of novelty, that unless our aduersaries haue still whorish forheades they will blushy and be ashamed: yea, and that the rather, in that against these and many such like arguments, and divine reasons, they cannot allege any one testimony of Scripture to prove their transubstantiation; but onely that Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body. Which words( as formerly appeareth) are not to bee understood properly, but figuratively: not naturally, but significatively: not carnally, but spiritually. Yea, besides that which already hath been uttered, if the holy ancient Fathers, in thus expounding them, make not with us expressly, and against our said aduersaries 
The ancient Fathers affirm the words of Christ to be figurative.  directly, then the victory shall bee theirs, and the shane and overthrow ours: yea, then with the fool I will foolishly say, Non putâram. Tertullian, being a holy Writer, and a very ancient Father 
Lib. 4. Contr. martion. ( for he lived more then 1300. yeares since) expoundeth them thus in his fourth book against the heretic martion: Acceptum panem, & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus meum: id est, figura corporis mei.  
Christ taking the bread and distributing to his Disciples, made it his Body; saying, This is my Body: that is to say, this is a figure of my body.  
And in his first book against the same heretic, the same author writeth after this manner: 
Idem, lib. 1.  God did not reject bread which is his creature; for by it he hath made a representation of his body.  
Saint Chrysostome saith, The bread sanctified is 
Chrysost, ad Caesar.  counted worthy to bee called the Lords Body, etsi natura panis in ipso permansit, though the nature of the bread remain there still.  
Theodoretus, answering to the objection of an 
Dialog. 2.  heretic, is right plain in this point: for saith he, Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt a natura sua, said manent in priori substantia, et figura, & forma. That is, The mystical tokens after the sanctification depart not from their own nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and shape; yea, and are sensibly seen to be the very same they were before.  
Saint jerome, speaking of Christ, saith, He offered not water but wine, for the figure of his blood. Saint Ambrose saith, that the bread and 
Ambr. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4.  wine are the very same they were, both in nature and substance.  
And Saint Augustine hath written at large in many of his works, and so plainly, against the error of transubstantiation, that our aduersaries the papists love least to hear of him of all other writers: partly for his authority, and partly because he openeth the matter more fully then any other. For saith he, Christes flesh and blood was in the 
August. Contr. Faustum.  old Testament promised by similitudes and signs of their sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in truth vpon the cross: but the same is now celebrated by a Sacrament of remembrance vpon the Altar. Likewise against the heretic Adimantus, he thus writeth: 
Contr. Adim. lib. 4.  Non dubitauit dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Our lord doubted not( saith he) to say, This is my body, when he gave a token of his body. In an other place also, Christ took Iudas( saith he) unto his Table, 
Idem in psal. 3.  whereat he gave unto his Disciples the figure of his body. Yea, and to this very Sacrament he applieth this rule, Omnis res naturam et veritatem illarum rerum in se continet, ex quibus conficitur: that is, every thing keepeth and containeth the nature and truth of those things, of which it consisteth.  
Now( most reverend, & right blessed brethren) if these & other reverend old Fathers, writing to like effect, haue expounded the words of Christ rightly, then where is the papists transubstantiation?  
Surely, surely( dear Christians) how rightly and religiously they are by the Fathers expounded, it may well be conceived, in that not any one of the ancient writers ever spake of real presence, or the literal sense of these words, This is my Body: yea, let our aduersaries the Papists bring but one catholic and godly learned Father, for the space of 700. years after Christ, that ever taught Popish transubstantiation, or that signified and insinuated any such matter; and we will not onely thereunto subscribe, but account also al other their vain and vncatholike fancies, to bee right catholic doctrine. But men, brethren, and Fathers, the best learned of that frowarde generation are so far from pleading either canonical Scriptures, or catholic Fathers, as that either they say directly( as did Alphonsus a great Papist) that the ancient Fathers never knew transubstantiation; Or else doubtfully( as did Gabriel Biel, another popish doctor) that how the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament, it is not found expressed 
Vpon the Canon, lect. 40.  in the Canon of the Bible: Or else they say deceitfully( like crafty hucksters) that they must hold of the Sacraments as the Church of Rome doth. Which third and last affirmation being fond and foolish, is utterly to be contemned and condemned: for Transubstantiation was never heard of at Rome, or in any other part of the world, until it was there decreed in the late council of lateran, holden under Pope Innocentius the third, in the year of our lord God 
The age of the Papists new transubstantiation is 393, yeares.  1215. So that for the space of twelve hundred & fifteen years after Christ, the Church of God was well able to stand without it. Now therfore it standeth us in hand considering the newness of it, and that our saviour Christ in saying, This is my body, did not abolish the substance of bread & wine, but did unite the force and fruit of his flesh crucified, and blood  shed for our sins, to the elements, that so receiving the one, wee might through faith, and by the operation of his working spirit be partakers of the other; it stands us( I say) in hand, not to bend our mindes on the outward signs of bread & wine set before us: but rather lifting up our hearts from them to Christ, who liveth & reigneth in heaven, it behoveth us to behold him the very lamb of God slain for the sins of the world, with the eyes and hands of our faith. Nam fide tangitur Christus, fide videtur: non corpore tangitur, non oculis comprehenditur. For saith Saint Ambrose, By faith Christ is touched, 
Ambr. in luke. lib. 6.  by faith he is seen: he is not touched with our body, nor viewed with our eyes. And elsewhere: Non corporali tactu Christum, said fide tangimus. That is, we touch not Christ( saith he) with our fingers, but with our faith.  
Saint Augustine likewise crieth: To what end preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? beleeue, and thou 
August. in joh. ●●ract. 25.  hast eaten. And in another place, We cannot( saith he) handle Christ with our fingers: but with our faith wee may. Yea, that to beleeue in Christ is to eat his flesh and drink his blood, Christ himself thus proveth it: he that cometh to me shall not hunger; and he that 
joh. 6.  believeth in me, shall never thirst. By which faith accordingly, not we, under the gospel onely, do eat Christs flesh and drink his blood; but the Patriarkes also, and Prophets, & people of God which lived before the birth of Christ, did receive him, and eat him, and live by him: They did( as Saint paul avoucheth) 
1. Cor. 10.  all eat the same spiritual meat, that is to say, even the same Christ that we eat, and did all drink of the same spiritual drink. whosoever believed in Christ, they were nourished by him then, as we are now. They did not see Christ: he was not yet born, he had not yet a natural body, yet did they eat his body: he had not yet any blood, yet did they drink his blood; they believed that it was he, in whom the promises should be fulfilled, they believed that he should be that blessed seed in whom all Nations should be blessed. Thus they believed, thus they received, and did eat his body. whereupon, the premises considered, it may rightly be inferred, that not our mouths, but our minds; not our bellies, but our spirits, are nourished with the flesh & blood of Christ: & that not by chewing, or swallowing; but by remembering and believing that his body was wounded, & his blood  shed for our perfect and eternal redemption.  
THus having hitherto declared( in handling the late doting devise of transubstantiation; whereupon in a manner dependeth all popery) and even effectually proved by sufficient testimonies both out of the holy Scriptures, and holy ancient Fathers, that the nature of the bread remaineth in the Sacrament after the words of consecration, and that there is no mutation in substance, but in use: it now further resteth but onely to point at an another horrible point of popish blasphemy, and so to committe you to God.  
Although( beloved) our saviour Christ commanded the Sacrament to bee ministered to all people in both kinds: yet our aduersaries the papists making even him our saviour to haue no wit, nor understanding what he did or said at his last supper, haue lately forbidden the mystical cup of his precious blood to be ministered to the laity. Wherein how shamefully soever, or rather how blasphemously these jolly fellowes, like jolly iuglers do judge this matter: yet I am sure that the holy Scripture teacheth plainly, that the books of the ancient Writers testify plentifully, and that continual practise for the space of a thousand yeares and upward firmly pleadeth, and without contradiction, the contrary. Saint Paul speaking to the whole congregation, saith: As often, as ye 
1. Cor 11. vers. 26. 27. 28.  shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lords death till he come.  
And again, whosoever( saith he) shal eat this bread, and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ.  
And again, Let every man( saith he) examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. He doth not say, let the Pastor and Minister examine himself, & so drink of this cup; but every man, even every Christian. To justify which exposition from Christ himself by a general affirmative, I appeal to the tenor of the institution. For as it was said, Take ye, eat ye: so it was said at the same time to the self same parties, drink ye all of this. Which two precepts 
Arguments against half Communions.  eat ye, drink ye, compriseth all, both Laymen and Clerkes: and therefore both sorts are either to bee excluded, or else to be admitted to receive in both kinds.  
again, the fruit & effect of the blood of Christ is common to the people with the Pastor: Ergo, being partners in the thing signified; the outward sign therof, which is the Communion of his blood  shed for the redemption of his people, ought to be divided indifferently between them.  
again, A dead mans will may not bee changed: Nothing can be put to, nothing taken out, without 
Gal. 3. 15.  forgery and false-hood: Ergo, the cup of salvation being a part of Christs will, & testament, may not bee taken away from the laity without sacrilege & bloody cruelty. And again, if the water in baptism may not be taken away from the Lords people: then the cup of the new Testament may not be taken away from them( for the blood of Christ, whereby remission of sins is purchased, is represented by the wine of the Lords Supper, aswell as by the water in baptism): but the water in baptism may not be omitted or neglected: Ergo, the cup of blessing may not( without great injury done to the Lords people) be taken from them. Other arguments to this effect, & in setting forth the truth hereo●, I could use many: but, knowing the nature of this matter to bee such, as that the evidence & clearness of the thing itself speaketh for the proof thereof, I am rather now disposed to call to witness in this behalf the holy ancient Fathers.  
Ignatius, being a good old Christian and constant 
Note well the consent of the Fathers.  Martyr of Iesus Christ in the primitive Church, writeth thus to the Church of Philadelphia: I exhort you, that you use al one faith, one public ministery & 
Ignat. ad Philad.  preaching of the word, and one Eucharist: for there is but one flesh of Iesus Christ, and one blood  shed for us; one bread broken for all, and one cup distributed to all.  
Saint Cyprian, writing unto Cornelius, saith, How do 
Epist. 2.  we teach or provoke them for the profession of his name to  shed their blood, if to them, going to the battle( speaking of Martyrs) wee shall deny his blood? or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we admit them not first, by right of the communion, to the cup of the Lord?  
Tertullian saith, By the Sacrament of bread and of 
Lib. 5. aduersus Marcionem.  the cup, we haue proved in the gospel the verity of the body & of the blood of our Lord, against the fantastical dreams of martion.  
And Saint Chrysostome, administering the Sacraments 
Chrysost. in 2. ad Cor. Hom. 18.  himself in the famous city of Constantinople, is so plain in this point, that nothing can be plainer: for( saith he) There is a thing wherein the Priest differeth nothing from the people; as when he must receive the dreadful Mysteries. For it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Priest eat one part and the people another, neither was it lawful for the people to be partaker of those things which the Priest was: but now it is not so, but rather one body is proposed to al & one cup.  
Lastly, to the end that all men may see and perceive what great injury is done to Christian people( for whom Christ died) by Pope-catholikes, the Romish heretics, especially that such false catholics themselves may confess it, if not with their mouths, at the least in their consciences; I will call at this time two Popes to witness. Pope lo the first, in whose dayes the communion under both kindes was so ordinary and certain, as that it was the mark whereby to know the Manachees, the most pernicious heretics that were in the Church, thus avoucheth: They take in their unworthy mouths the Body of the Lord, 
Serm. quadrag. 4.  and refuse altogether to drink the blood of our Redemption; which he calleth a sacrilegious hypocrisy. And Pope Gelasius speaking not of the Manachees, 
De consecra. distinct. 2. cap.  as lo doth, but of other persons received into the Christian Church, thus uttereth his iudgement; Wee haue heard, that some having onely received the holy portion of the body, do abstain from the cup of the 
If Popes tell you this tale take heed ye Papists to your consciences.  holy blood: but sith that they are moved by a fond superstition, which I know not, thus to abstain, either let them receive the whole Sacrament, or else let them be wholly and utterly restrained and shut out from the same: for there can bee no division of this one Sacrament, and high mystery, without great sacrilege. Whereby it appeareth, even in the iudgement of these Popes, that if we will not incur & run into apparent, violent, and wilful sacrilege, the communion must bee ministered to all men, without exception, in both kindes, according to the right intention of Christ Iesus, and according to that course which the Christian world diligently observed for the space of 1230. yeares, and ever after also( but even in some few places onely) until in the late council of Constance a wicked decree and ungodly was made to the contrary. Whereupon, Gerson a great Papist being a chief agent in that council, with other the Popes proctors and doctors of special reputation, did so beate their brains to justify that act in that council established, as that they almost lost their foreheads. For the considerations by them alleged, wherewith they were led thus to change the last Will and Testament of CHRIST IESVS, are but very poor shifts and most miserable inducementes: as, the length of Lavmens beards, the costliness of wine; the difficulties first of getting, then of keeping wine from souring, from freezing, and breedinge of flies. All which and many such like foolish and frivolous toys thus hatched by their own fancies, being no less ridiculous then the fact was impious, must stand for reason( if wee will bee ruled by a whorish Mother the Church of Antichrist) against all reason and religion.  
Now what is mockery, or what is injury to GOD and man, if it bee religion and piety, in respect of long beards, in respect of frosts in winter, and flies in Summer, to correct Christs institution, and to chase the Lay people from the cup of their salvation, from the Communion of Christs blood, and fellowship of his holy spirit? Surely, surely( beloved) howsoever these dainty divines haue lately thus fallen into great blindness, or rather wilful madness: yet undoubtedly no Church ever resisted mangled Communions with greater vehemency than the Church of Rome did, till covetousness & pride blinded her eyes, & hardened her heart against God and his son Christ: Which God for Christ his sake open the eyes of her corrupt Children, and so mollify their hearts, as that they may receive Christs holy Mysteries, not according to their own fond fance● & doting dreams; but according to the first institution thereof, & according to the general practise of all Christian Churches in former times. For otherwise if they still led their dayes in voluntary blindness, & wilful wickedness, they shall die in their sins: ye●, death and damnation shall be their portion for ever: because they haue pleasure in their own inventions, and do not give their hearts to receive to beleeue, & to love the truth. From which death and damnation, he deliver both them and us, who to receive the blessed Sacrament in both kindes by his last will commanded us, even Iesus Christ the righteous: to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghost, three persons in trinity, one eternal, ever living, and everlasting God in unity, be rendered all power, all praise, all might, and all majesty, both now, and for evermore, Amen.  
FINIS.