I Being about to speake of the Lords supper, will begin with the words of our sauior out of the seuenteenth chapter of the gospell after Iohn. Iohn. 17.3. This is (saith the Lord Iesus) life euerlasting, that they know thee to be the onelie true & verie God, Two things principally to be ob­serued in the text. and him whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ. Out of these words therefore we vnderstand or gather two things: The first is, that our saluation 1 hangeth vpon the certeine knowledge of the true and very God, who is also the one and onelie God. The other is, that this 2 knowledge was for our saluation at the last made manifest vnto vs, in the person of his sonne, The knowledge of God without Christ, is no­thing to sal­uation. so that he that perceiueth somewhat of God, or knoweth him with­out Christ, perceiueth or knoweth no­thing at all to saluation. Wherevpon also this necessarilie followeth, that if we once perceiue the person & office of Christ (for these two things must be ioined togither) we doo withall vnderstand the true and [Page 2] onelie way of eternall life.

And forasmuch as the controuersie tou­ching the Lords supper must be directed to this end or marke, this must also be con­fessed, that the controuersies sprong vp & arisen touching these points cannot be ta­ken away or ended, neither can we vnder­stand or perceiue what we should truelie & rightly determine concerning the lords supper, except we begin with these things, which must needs be knowne, touching Iesus Christ. Therefore before we come to intreat of the matter it selfe, that is to say, of the supper of the Lord, we wil shew what we ought by the word of GOD to beleeue concerning Christ. Sound know­ledge of Chri­stes person and offices, will o­uerthrow ma­nie heresies. Certeinelie the thing it selfe will declare, that that foundation or groundworke being once laid, it will come to passe, that manie er­rors will of their owne accord, without a­nie other helpe, fall downe togither and vanish away: for it is certeine and mani­fest, that manie questions tossed to & fro, and handled touching this point, haue sprong from hence, Ignorance and hypoc [...]isie, two great meanes to mainteine error. because that some, which do so stiflie defend this their opini­ons, either haue not vnderstood, or els dis­sembled, what we ought to iudge and be­leeue [Page 3] touching Christ. Wherefore some points being first put downe, we will af­terwards by this rule examine diuerse, yea, repugnant & contrarie opinions tou­ching the Lords supper, and will affirme such as are agreeable to these stedfast and vnmooueable principles, to be true, and such others as shall swarue from them, to be false.

In Christ we haue, I say, Two thinges cheeflie to be considered in Christ. speciallie to consider two things: his person, and his office. By the word person we vnder­stand 1 or meane Christ himselfe. His person: of which he spea­keth in this homilie. And his office we call that duetie or charge which the father laid vpon him, to saue vs, which thing he himselfe did most perfectlie and 2 plentifullie performe. His office: of which he spea­keth in the next homilie. Now in the first place we must speake of Christes per­son, which we must of necessitie deter­mine to be such a one, that he was fullie and throughlie able to indure and fulfill that duetie: for vnlesse it be certeine that Christ was such a one, as was able to accomplish all things necessarie, meet and apperteining to his charge, we shall in vaine reason or dispute concerning his office. In Christes per­son two things. In Christ therefore there are to be considered these two things, to wit, the [Page 4] 1 natures whereof he consisteth, The whole per­son it selfe. and the ve­rie person it selfe, compacted as a man 2 would say, The two na­tures wherof it consisteth. First he shew­eth what we must vnder­stand by na­tures in Christ. of these natures. By the na­tures we vnderstand not naturall power as when we saie, this is the nature of a man, of a beast, of a plant, of this or that thing, neither formall power (for so they should be two persons, of which Christ should consist) but these two substances wherof Christs person consisteth, & is as it were compacted. A similitude. As for example, if we say that man is made of two natures, the one spirituall, which is the nature of the soule, the other bodilie, which is the nature of the body: Eutyches affir­med, that Christ had but one na­ture, that is to say, diuine or of God, like as hee was but one person. Hee was a­bout the yeere 450, as some think. His error was condemned in the Ephesine councell. Nestorius dee­med our sauior to be God. Hee was as some sup­pose, about the yeere 419. so we also say and affirme, that Christ consisteth of two natures, of which one is the Godhead, and the other is the manhood.

By the way I will speake this thing, that we are constreined to vse new spee­ches, that we may auoid new errors, or els old ones new polished and trimmed, with which manie men at this daie do intangle & snare themselues: for, as in proper place heerafter we will shew, there haue risen & sprong vp within our remembrance cer­teine men, who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches, & partlie of Nestorius, haue [Page 5] in stead of the word Godhead, brought in diuinitie, and therfore we are inforced to distinguish Godhead from diuinitie. And verilie Paule spake not rashlie where hee saith that the fulnes of the godhead dwel­leth in Christ, where he vseth also, Colloss. 2.9. not the word [...], that is diuinitie, but [...], that is deitie or Godhead: The Gretians do in their termes more fitlie ex­presse religion than the La­tinists. for the Greti­ans, I know not by what meane, do much better and more effectuallie expresse these things than the Latins doo, as also in this argument, or matter, I would more glad­lie & willingly for plainnesse sake say and vse [...], that is hominitas, if it be lawfull to speake so in Latine, or as you would say, mans nature, or the verie state and condition of mans nature, rather than humanitie or manhood,

Then we perceiue & vnderstand, that in Christes 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, saieng that he was consubstantiall, that is, of the selfe same substance with the father, and as he himselfe expoundeth it, God of the sub­stance of the father, and man of the sub­stance of his mother, that is, of the same [Page 6] substance that we are. Afterwards the church vsed the word [...], Synodus Chal­cedonensis. that is na­ture. We confesse, saith the Chalcedon synod, that the sonne consisteth of two na­tures. Neither in deed was the terme na­ture vnaduisedlie vsed, or rashlie taken vp, albeit it if we would narrowlie consider the propertie of the word, the word [...], that is nature, dooth not agree to the diuinitie, for it is deriued or commeth [...], that is, The reasons moouing the fathers to vse the word, Na­ture. to be borne or sprong vp, which agreeth well to a thing created, but not to God himselfe, the creator. Where­fore this seemeth to be the reason, which led and mooued the fathers to vse this word, because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches, by whome not onelie the verie natures themselues, but also the proprieties of the natures were confoun­ded and shuffled togither. Now because Eutyches did mainteine and defend both these errors, and the word [...], dooth 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 vsed the word nature. In summe, let vs resolue vpon this, and set it downe [Page 7] as an vndoubted truth, that when we say, Christ consisteth of two natures, we mean his deitie and humanitie, that is his God­head, and mans nature.

Let vs now come to the word Person. Touching the terme person. The later writers haue called that per­son, which the former called [...], and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vse this word person. Now a­mongst diuines, and in their writings [...] that is substance, and [...], that is person, are distinguished after this sort: Substance and person distin­guished. vnder the word [...]; or [...] in the plurall number, are meant the per­sons which are in the cōmon essence or be­ing, hauing the proprietie ioined therevn­to, whereby one [...] a person is se­parated or distinguished from the other, and by the word [...], that is substance, God or the Godhead it selfe is signified and meant, but the Father, the sonne, and the Holie spirit, are called [...], that is persons. Neither was it rashlie or vnaduisedlie doone, that the church hath vsed the name of person, Boetius. which Boêtius hath defined thus, saieng that it is y ^e com­municate propertie of a reasonable sub­stāce, because many did throgh very great [Page 8] error, freelie & indifferentlie vse these two words [...], that is person, & [...], for one and the selfe same thing. So the Latine writers for [...] or person, v­sed and said substance, euen as the logiti­ans are woont so to call it: wherfore that this doubtfulnesse might be auoided, the word [...] began to be vsed.

Now let vs speake more plainlie what we call person, or meane by that name, when we intreat 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 lawfull for vs to diuide Christ into his parts, one part of his per­son should be his Godhead, and the other part his manhood? Christes man­hood cannot properlie be called a per­son, and the cause therof. Not so at anie hand, for Christ is not said or called a person pro­perlie in respect of his humanitie or man­hood, but of his diuine nature onelie, and yet that not to be separated from his man­hood. This is the cause or reason thereof: If Christes humane nature had beene, be­fore it was taken of the diuine nature: that is to say, of the word, there should then be an vnton of two persons, and not of two natures, and therfore Christ should be a person compact of two persons, wher­vpon [Page 9] would insue manie absurd, vnprofi­table, yea altogither wicked & vngodlie matters, whereof nowe there is neyther time nor place to speake. Therefore thus it must be determined, that the diuine nature tooke on it the humane nature, for­ming and fashioning it: and euen whiles it was formed and fashioned, to haue ta­ken it vnto it selfe, that is to saie, that Christes humane nature was neuer ex­tant, or had beeing, but in the Godhead: wherfore the humane nature in Christ, Christ as hee is God, is a person, & his godhead is a nature, as al­so his manhood. is not a person, but the humanitie subsisteth, and hath his being in this person of the word, and therfore Christ is not either in imagination or in deede, 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 it selfe, anie o­ther thing than a nature, which (as they speake in the scholes) is become a person, There is but one sonne of God, as there is but one Christ. and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe, so that now there are not two sonnes, to wit, one eternall and naturall, or of the substance and being of the father, and another created and adopted, but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD, sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to him­self, [Page 10] so that also there are not two Christs, but one onelie, God and man together, from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke. Now we learne 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 vs come nowe to the word vnion: for vniting is that whereby these two na­tures, to wit, the godhead or the person of the word, and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together. The Grecians call this [...], What vnion or vniting is. that is, the coupling or ioy­ning together of two thinges or more, in such sort, that of those many things com­myng together, some one certaine thing is compounded or made. There are diuers sorts of vniting. And there are di­uers kinds of vnitings: for sometimes na­ture 1 is vnited with the forme or shape: 2 sometime an accident with the subiect: & 3 sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts, to establish or make a whole mat­ter. Vniting, and v­nion, or vnitie differ much. Wherefore vniting is one thing, and vnitie or onenesse (as a man might saye) is an other thing. For one or onenesse is not a number, neither dooth it necessari­ly presuppose a number [...] except in things compounded, but is the beginning of a [Page 11] number. Therefore we hold, that there is in christ, a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person, and an vniting of the na­tures.

These words are diligently to be mar­ked, & so much the more, bicause y ^e neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions & troubles in these disputations & matters. Certainely, [...], that is, vniting, and [...], that is, vnitie, or onenesse, are al­togither diuers matters. For in the my­sterie of the Trinitie, there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence, and a Trinitie in the persons. Againe, on the other side, there is in Christ an vniting of the na­tures, and an vnitie or onenesse of the person. Wherefore the Fathers saide well, that in the diuinitie, there is not an other thing, and an other thing, that is to say, In the godhead there is but one simple being. two thinges (for in the diuinitie there is but one onely 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 Holie-ghost is an other. The reason is, because when we say another, we mean the person: when wee saye an other thing, wee meane the nature. Wherefore there is not an other [Page 12] thing in the diuinity, 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, bicause Christ is but one subsistence or be­ing, consisting not of two persons, but of mans nature being taken, which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature.

Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion, or v­niting. This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting, Errors cannot be wel confū ­ted, til the per­sonall vnion bee well knowne. is called personall: vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors, wherewith too manie at this pre­sent are sicke and infected, as we shall wel perceiue, when we shall come to the mat­ter it selfe: wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God. Isaiah. 7.14. Matth. 1.23. First Isaiah saieth, that this our sauiour is Immanuell, that is, God with vs. Iohn. 1.14. Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie, saith, that the word became, or was made flesh. Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies, that manner of being made is declared by the [Page 13] Apostle, in the epistle to the Hebrewes, Hebr. 2.1 [...]. when hee saith, that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham. Therefore the word ta­king, openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn: And the word was made flesh, and both these laid togither doo also de­clare, how Christ is God with vs: and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall v­nion is. They which haue not interpre­ted that place of Iohn, Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn. out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues, haue fallen in­to diuerse errors: for some haue expoun­ded it thus, the word was made flesh, be­cause 1 the word was in sted of the soule vn­to the bodie taken, that is to say, that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man: so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie, that by that meanes he might become Christ. So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule, & in the sted thereof did substitute the God­head. Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man, and not a reaso­nable soule. Tripartit. hist. lib. 5. cap. 44. & lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil. epist. 74. August. lib. & Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of A­pollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted, this also necessarilie foloweth, that except the word had taken the soule vnto it, [Page 14] likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost, bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person, neither could Christ properlie haue suffered (that I may let slippe many other most absurd points) seeing that the soule properlie is 2 troubled and afflicted. Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh, a ghost or fantasie, and to that purpose haue wre­sted and writhen the worde similitude or likenes, Roman. 8.3. in these wordes of Paule, 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 indeede (as some suppose) from Simon Magus, who helde, that Christ came not in the flesh, but that hee was Christ. They held as the Marcionites did, that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost: See homil. 2. following. If these mens opiniōs were true, christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus, or a Sauiour, as indeed one that had not bin born or had 3 suffered for vs. There are othersome, who forsaking these errors, do notwithstāding fall into others, no lesse absurde and dete­stable, bicause (as the Poet saieth) while fooles auoid some vices or faults, they ru [...] into others. Nestorius, whose heresie what it was is opened before. For Nestorius interpreted these wordes, the word became flesh after this manner, that is to saie, the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie [Page 15] and fullie powre foorth, the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke. The absurditie of the former interpretation. Which interpretation if it be true, Christ is not God, but diuine, or as you woulde say, god-like or heauenlie, and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones, yet hee is not to be worship­ped, neither to be accounted as a Saui­our.

Whereas notwithstanding Paule at­tributeth vnto Christ, Coloss. 2. [...]. not the fulnesse of the diuinitie, but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead, and to be both GOD and man (which is a proper title to our sa­uiour Christ) is far different from this, to be one that beareth or carrieth God. So that Nestorius maketh Christ God, not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or per­son of the word, but accounts him as most diuine, onely by the presence, comming, & force, or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts: and beside that, loosing, or destroy­ing Christs 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 fleshe taken is sustained and vp­holden, in, and by, the godhead taking it. Eutyches here­sie confuted.

Eutyches falling into the contrarie [Page 16] error thought that by these words, Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie. 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 v­niting of the natures, he substituted or e­stablished the abolishing of the Godhead, that is to say, darknesse for light: in which 1 matter he was most foulie deceiued, for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable, it would follow, if that were true which 2 Eutyches affirmeth, that the word ceased to be God, so soone 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. euen as Aristotle teacheth, that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme, another is brought in. But if 3 the abolishing or taking away be denied, that a mingling a mixture may be esta­blished, whether it be of the natures them­selues, it is of the Godhead and the man­hood, or of the properties of either nature, then will insue that, which is more ab­surd than the former, to wit, that Christ is neither God nor man, but a certeine third thing compacted of both, as the [Page 17] drinke called Mulsum, made of wine and honie sodden together, is neither wine nor honie alone, but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both: and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors? The right inter­pretation of some words pro­fitable to con­fute sundrie errours. But all these errours, are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted, if the worde of assuming or taking, bee rightlie ex­pounded: that is, by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scrip­ture. Wherefore declare at the length will some saie, The personall vnion what it is. what is the hypostati­call or personall vnion in Christ? It is the taking of mans nature, which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature, that is to say, such a taking or vniting, that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting, but one subsistence or being onelie, in which subsistence, that diuine nature, that is to saie, the per­son of the worde beareth swaie, or ruleth. I repeate this againe: The hypostati­call or personall vnion is that, from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person: for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the [Page 18] soule, Athanasius. Athanasius, who was a most con­stant defender and stout maintainer of this truth, being chiefly the author there­of. A similitude. Wherefore as a certaine soule, beeing ioyned to a certain bodie, maketh one cer­taine person, as Peter, Paule, Iohn. So that eternall worde of the Father, tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine, that is to saye, made the same so proper vnto it selfe, that from hence commeth and pro­ceedeth that person, whiche is called Christ. It appeareth plainelie vnto vs, out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn, Iohn. 10.18. that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort. Christ there saith, I haue power to lay downe my soule or life, and to take it againe. For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake, either secretlie in respect of his bodie, The place of Iohn 10. ex­pounded: which cannot be vn­derstood either of the or in re­spect of his soule, or else in respect of his bodie and soule together, or else distinct­ly and plainely in respect of his godhead. Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe, Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe, because so excellent an ac­tion cannot be attributed to an instrumēt [Page 19] that which is rather subiect to the soule. or Soule alon [...] But is it in respect of the soule it self con­sidered by it selfe? No indeede: for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide: I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule, and to take vp againe my selfe a soule. Verily in the resurrection, the soule is not taken vp againe, but the bodie: therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ, either in respect of his bodie onelie, or in respect of his soule onely: or of them both togither, What then is it in re­spect of them both together? No, rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing, which may be saide to laie downe, and to take vp his soule. Where­fore Christ so spake according to his dei­tie: and when hee saieth, but of the god­head. that he hath po­wer to laie downe his life, and to take it againe, he dooth againe open that myste­rie or secret which wee handle. For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together, are in suche sorte sette 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 meete to be marked that Christ saieth: I haue power to laie downe, not euery soule, but mine owne. Wherefore this cannot so be [Page 20] taken, nor referred to this end, that God should be the lord of all being things, but he sheweth, that that soule of his which he would lay down & take again, was other­wise his soule, than other mens soules are theirs. How then is it Christes soule will some men say? Verily by personall vnion. The scripture saith that God dwelleth in vs, Iohn. 4.12. and yet we beleeue and confes, that he dwelleth not in his saints, by his vnion or vniting: 1. Corinth. 6.19. For our bodies are so the tēples of the holy ghost, that yet they make not one subsistēce or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is seuerally & by himselfe a certaine thing, & so likewise the holy ghost, to wit, god eternall. So a wicked spirit, and some one possessed with y ^e same wicked spirit, are ioined togither, & yet the vncleane spirite is not in man, as the soule is in the bodie. For the wicked spirit remaineth by it self, a certain thing much like as the ghest is in his inne: and againe, the possessed with the wicked spi­rit, is so become the inne or lodging place of the wicked spirite, that yet the ghest is another from him. As for vs we affirme, the person of the word, or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken [Page 21] vnto him, that hee hath vnited himselfe thereto by a personall vnion: so I say, that the nature taken or assumed, being sustai­ned and vpheld in the nature taking or as­suming, maketh yet notwithstanding but one person, which is the eternall worde of God. Hereupon it foloweth that there are not two sonnes of God, much lesse two Christs, one, the son of Marie, the other, the son of God, Matth. 1.21.23 but one Immanuel and sa­uior onelie. And this is the very true de­scription of the personall vnion, as wil yet much more plainelie appeare, if we com­pare with this truth touching the personal vnion: Sundrie sorts of errors. the descriptions that are partlie felt from the olde heresies, and partlie a­new deuised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies. First, there are some that feare 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. Iacobus Andre­as assertion, and the same con­futed. Iacobus Andreas in those his The­sis or propositions, by which he blowed to the field, or bade the battel, wrote the same euen in so many words, as you would saie, to wit, that the habitation or dwelling of [Page 22] the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creaturs whatsoeuer, as in respect of his essentiall habitation or dwelling, for God is euerie where. If a man demaund what shall be the difference of the personall vnion: this shall be their answeare, that it con­sisteth herein, that into all other things the godhead hath powred forth some pro­perties or qualities, but into Christes hu­manity or manhoode hee hath powred all properties. A wonderfull thing, that af­ter that these opinions haue nowe a long while since bin tossed, and by the solemne and most iust iudgements of Christes church, condemned and confounded by so many darts, as haue come from heauen it selfe, against the authors and fautors of these vngodlie blasphemies, a maruellous thing, I say, that there should now spring vp some, as dare be bolde, both by worde and writing, to maintaine and defend the same, and that with so great reioicing and commendation of most vnskilfull men: for who is he vnles hee be altogither blinde, that seeth not, that if the word be no other wise present in christ, thā in many things, (that is to say, beingly, presently, power­fully [Page 23] as in schools they were woont to say) that then Christs person is destroied, His heresie is declared be­fore. as Nestorius taught? And that if wee grant an effusion or powring forth of all the pro­prieties of the godhead into the flesh assu­med or taken, that then the other part of the vngodlie assertion of Eutyches, Concerning him and his heresie, see before. shall be erceted and set vp? A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such diuers matters, to wit, the seperating of the naturs on the one side, & the effusion or powring 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 vnskilfully by our vbiquitaries defended.

But let vs, I pray you, somwhat more narrowlie looke into the matter, that we may see what it meaneth. This I say; that if the personall vnion be to be defined and determined by the effusion or powring foorth of all properties, that then this, Hee ouerthrow­eth the error by absurdities in­suming vpon it. The first absur­ditie. which of al things is most false & vngodly will follow therevpon, to wit, that God is in some sorte personallie vnited vnto all things created. Why so? Because the effusiō or powring forth of all, & some pro­perties alone, doo not differ genere, as they say, that is, in the general or cōmon kind, [Page 24] but according to more or lesse only: wher­fore either Christ was not otherwise God than any other thing, though perhaps hee were somewhat more perfect than other things, or else other things were diuine and god-like, but Christs flesh most diuine and god-like. The second absurditie. Againe, if the definition of the personall vnion were true, it woulde followe therevpon, that the three persons wer vnited, to that flesh that was assumed or taken, for the essentiall proprietie of the verie godhead it selfe, are common to the three persons in one & the self-same essence or being: therfore to be infinite, almigh­ty, knowing al things, present euery wher &c: (as they themselues now speak) be not proprieties, either of the father or of the son, or of the holy ghost, but onely of that alone, and altogither singular godhead. Wherevpon it foloweth, that if we grant that definition of the personall vnion, that then the 3 persons of the godhead were in­carnat, They were so called, bicause they affirmed that God the father suffered. Isiodor. Orig. libr. 8. The third absurditie. & tooke flesh vpon them, and so we shall proceede further than the patropassi­an heretiks. Moreouer, by this means the godhead it self shold be spoiled of his most essential proprieties, euē this I say which are most proper therto, or which do belōg [Page 25] vnto the same, after the fourth maner or sort, as the logicians speake, that is to say, doo belong vnto the whole Godhead alone vnto the Godhead, and alwaies vnto the same: for verilie, if they be in deed com­municated vnto the nature of man that was assured or taken, then I say they doo now cease to be proper to the Godhead, vnlesse we minde to make these termes, proper & common, all one. But the Lord speaketh otherwise in the prophet saieng: I will not giue my glorie vnto another. Isaiah. 48.11. The fourth ab­surditie. What more? Him whome these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion, had made of him that was God & man to­gither in one person, but one that carried or bare God, these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion & conceit, trans­forme him I say and his flesh (hauing in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powred into the same) into the Godhead it selfe. But now, if there nothing happen to God, or there be no accident in him, as indeed there is not, for whatsoeuer is in him, is substance and not accidents, as they speake in schooles, How were the properties (by which he is distinguished from things created) indeed [Page 26] powred foorth into the flesh assumed and taken, but that also mans nature should be changed into a certeine Godhead that is made or created? He procureth an obiection. But if these men will denie (as sometimes I see them by the power of trueth it selfe constreined to denie) that the monstrous presence euerie where (for whose cause onelie (whatsoeuer they faine) they propound vnto vs that monster of vbiquitie, to be esteemed and reuerenced) dooth not cleaue vnto Chri­stes flesh as to his proper subiect, or that it is not accidents, but onlie as accidents, then I say, who seeth not what monstrous things these are, to ascribe vnto the flesh a reall presence euerie where in it selfe, though not of it selfe, the subiect whereof should yet notwithstanding, not be the flesh it selfe, but the Godhead, which God­head for all that, should no otherwise be present to the flesh, than to all other things whatsoeuer? And whereof will these men be ashamed, who are so farre off from be­ing ashamed of these matters, that yet they dare obiect this against vs, that we exact points of diuinitie and religion to be handled according to the rules of phi­losophie? The fift absur­ditie. Certeinelie, if so be it that [Page 27] the personall vnion must be defined and determined, not by the vnion of the verie person of the word, with flesh assumed or taken, into one and the selfe same subsi­stence or being, yet without anie reall v­nion, either of the natures themselues or of the essentiall properties wherwith they are indued, but by the vniuersall effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces from the nature assuming or taking, into the nature assumed or taken (which mon­strous opinion fet from the filthie & stinc­king puddles, both of Nestorius & Euty­ches also, and twise sod Brentius, Suinde­linus, Illyrichus, and these other goodlie fellowes doo propound and deliuer vnto the churches of Christ) I say that whe­ther they will yea or no, this must needs follow vpon it, that Christ is neither God nor man, much lesse GOD and man togither, Chimaera is a monster hauing three heads, one like a lion, ano­ther like a gote, & the third like a dragon. but a certeine Chimaera or mon­ster made of most grosse confusion and dis­cord. Yea, and what meaneth this, that they themselues are of necessitie constrei­ned to except some things, after that they haue affirmed that all things are pow­red foorth. The sixt absur­ditie. For these things verilie to be without beginning to be of him­selfe [Page 28] &c. Cannot be attributed to a crea­ture, but they may be personallie vnited, and are in deed personallie vnited, because that must be true which Christ, himselfe saith: Iohn. 8.58. Before Abraham was, I am. And this is true, because that he that after so manie ages passed from the beginning of the world was made, or became the sonne of Mary, Iohn. 1.1. euen he I say, is that word which was in the beginning, not so much for his full effusion or powring foorth of power­full graces, as for the bodilie vnion or vni­ting of the Godhead it himselfe in the per­son of the word: wherefore, if we will be­leeue these men, this sonne of the virgine Marie shall not be eternall, because there was not powred into the flesh assumed or taken, that same being without begin­ning, whereof he cannot be partaker, euen as they themselues confesse, who are other­wise large sheders abrode, or rather euer­ters and ouerthrowers of all properties. They being thus driuen from hense, euen as it were out of some hold or fortresse of their owne, at the last they retire hither, or haue this starting hole, Another obie­ction answered or rather error confuted. to say forsooth, that the personall vnion consisteth heerin, that the word dooth nothing, but with the [Page 29] manhoood and by the manhood, as the soule dooth nothing, but with the bodie or by the bodie. Peripatelians were subtle phi­losophers of A­ristotles sect & opinion, who had their names of disputing walking. I will leaue this to the Pe­ripatelians to be reasons of, whether it be true, that the soule ioined to the bodie doth nothing of it selfe, for there are not diuers wanting, that doo stiflie and stoutlie denie the same. But I affirme, that that defini­tion of the personall vnion, cannot stand. I grant therefore, that from the time the eternall word tooke flesh vnto him, that it did not at anie time doo anie thing with­out the flesh, the reason is, because this v­nion is perpetuall: and yet for al that, it dooth not heerevpon follow, that whatsoe­uer the worde 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 tooke it neuer laid downe, yet it followeth not, that whatsoeuer the word did, it did it by the fleshe, which thing may bee shewed, by most assured and manifest examples. The first ex­ample. Christ raised vppe himselfe by his owne diuine power, who also had said of him­selfe: Iohn. 10.18. I haue power to lay downe my soule or life, and to take it againe. Did therefore the Godhead, through the flesh [Page 30] accomplish and performe that worke? I suppose no man will say so. The second ex­ample. Iohn. 1.48. Matth. 9.4. When Christ beheld Nathaniell absent, did he see him with his bodilie eies? And when with­out the disclosing of anie other man, he saw the thoughts of his aduersaries, did he this by anie sharpnesse of mans minde or vnderstanding? No verilie. Where­fore he saw all these things as he was God, and not with minde or bodie, and yet he saw them not without man, because he being God is man also. The third ex­ample. Matth. 8.13. Iohn. 9.6.7, &c. When he healed the Centurians seruant being absent, did he that as when he healed that blind man being present, putting his hand to him, and making the claie? No in deed. For he wrought this latter, by his hands moo­ued through the flesh, that is to say, vsing the instrument of flesh assumed or taken, whereas he healed the other by the onelie power of his Godhead. And yet he was not free from flesh, I confesse it. He hea­led him therefore with the flesh, but not through flesh. Wherefore in this fel­low-working togither of the Godhead, & the nature assumed or taken, the personall vnion is not deposed or ouerthrowne, but established rather. Beside though I should [Page 32] grant the antecedent or first proposition, He granteth the aduersaries that which they speake, and yet they gaine no­thing by it. to witte, that the worde dooth nothing but with and by the manhood, yet that would not follow therevpon that they imagine. For though the artificer or handicrafts man doo nothing but by his instrument or toole, An apt simili­tude. yet for all that the artificer and his toole are not vnited into one subsistence or being: this is my meaning, that that it dooth or worketh, is not therefore vnited with that, by which he dooth or worketh, for the dooer, and the instrument of doing are two seuerall and distinct things. So the smith or carpenter is not vnited with his hammer or mallet. Iohn. 1.3. Hebr. 1.1. The father crea­ted all things through the sonne, as the holie scripture witnesseth. Now because the father created all things through the sonne, shall it therevpon follow, that the father and the sonne are personallie vni­ted togither? No verilie: For they are, and that in deed distinct persons, Wher­fore neither in the effusion or powring out of powerfull graces, nor in the com­municating of their powerfull working togither, can the personall vnion be well described. Let that rather remaine sure, that I haue said, to wit, that that [Page 32] vnion may rightlie be called personall, Personall vnion, what it is. by which it commeth to passe, that one person of two natures (the natures & properties of either nature remaining safe & sound) becommeth 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 it selfe, they should be two persons. Moreouer, before we take in hand to han­dle the matter it selfe, we must also de­clare, how from this personall vnion insu­eth that which the old writers and fathers were woont to call communicating of the properties: for if both the natures them­selues and the properties thereof doo re­maine safe and sound, then there remai­neth likewise vnto either nature these pro­per attributes or things ascribed vnto them: and therefore it should seeme, 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 our selues are taught so to speake, in the apo­stles symbole or creed, when we say: I be­leeue in Iesus Christ, the onlie sonne of [Page 33] God, who was conceiued, borne, suffe­red, cru [...]ified, buried, &c. Certeine rules are to be obser­ued for the right vnderstanding of the commu­nicating of pro­prieties. That we may well know and vnderstand this matter, we must earne to distinguish the things attribu [...] to either nature. If we will speake [...]perlie and truelie, we say that things attributed to either of the natures, must most properlie and in deed be attri­buted to be same. The first rule. And this is the first rule. Wherefore we affirme that Christ, as in respect of his Godhead, is the eter­nall sonne of God, is infinite, is euerie where, is eternall, is the creator of all things, cannot die, is inuisible, &c. All which things are truelie and properlie at­tributed t [...] that nature of the son of God which is v [...]ited to flesh. Now these things are proper to his humane nature or man­hood, that it had a beginning, that it was conceiued by the Holie ghost, that it suffe­red, and at the last rose againe. Now from whence commeth this difference? Verilie from this, that the natures re­maine safe, sound, and vnconfounded, least if in the personall vnion they were con­founded, that which were spoken of ones nature should be attributed to the other. And the second rule is this. The second rule Certeine [Page 34] 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 thinges in deede as resp [...]ct the per­son, and are attributed to his a [...]d person, which cannot yet be spoken s [...]uerallie of either of his natures: as for example, if I say Christ is the mediator: th [...]t word me­diator, neither to the Godhe [...]d by it selfe 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 togither to Christ, are perso­nall, that is to say, respect his whole per­son, which vnlesse we confesse we shall fall into the heresie of Nestorius and his par­takers. And yet in the meane while this & such like, are so the works of the whole person, Leo. One sort of he­retiks had both these names, be­cause they held that Christ had but one will, & one nature, and not two wils, or two natures an­swering to his two natures. that notwithstanding either of the natures doth distinctlie bring with it his proper & peculiar worke to this common deed of redemption, mediation, &c. as Leo teacheth in that his famous and woorthie epistle, which also we must know and be­leeue, least we should fall into that other heresie of the Monoth [...]its or Monophy­sits. And yet the kno [...] is not vntied, nor [Page 35] the mat [...]er dispatched. Therefore we are principalie to marke yet a certeine other maner o [...] speech touching Christ, which as it is t [...]ue in respect of the whole per­son, These darcke termes are ex­pounded after­wards by the author himselfe. den [...]minated either of the concrets: so it cann [...]t without great impietie be at­tributed [...] either of the natures, conside­red by themselues, or in the abstract: as for example, when we say, God (to wit, the word [...] sonne) redeemed the church by his blo [...]d: so we doo rightlie beleeue and say, th [...]t God suffered and died, Acts. 20.28. which that vngod [...]ie man Nestorius denied. For vnlesse God had beene he that suffered for vs, his suf [...]ering could not haue brought saluation vnto vs. Wherefore we say that God was [...]rne, suffered, dead, and rose againe. And againe on the other side we say, that the sonne of man was in heauen, when he spa [...]e on the earth with Nicode­mus. Iohn. 3.13. And [...]his we affirme euen by this rule following, to wit, The third rule. that whatsoeuer words or termes, are proper to either of the natures, that is to say, the Godhead or the manhood, they may be changed in the concret, 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 forme [Page 36] it selfe, being by thought seuere [...] from the matter, an abstract: as for example, If I doo in my mind comprehend, no some iust man or other, but some iustice or righte­ousnesse of a man: which also hath place in other predications. Iustic [...] therefore or righteousnesse shall be a c [...]rteine ab­stract, that is to say, a thing c [...]sidered by it selfe, and not in the subiect, or particu­lar partie wherein it is. Concret, and what he mea­neth therby. And [...]he concret shall be the matter or man hi [...]selfe, as a iust man, to wit, he that is [...]ndued with that iustice or righteousnes. S [...] in Christ, we consider in the abstract t [...]o natures, the manhood and the Godhea [...], but in the concret we comprehend him God & man. Therefore let Godhead and [...]anhood be the abstracts, and God and [...]an the con­crets. And then I say, that the thinges attributed to the humanitie 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 affirme, 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 eternall word of the [Page 37] father is man: but these are vngodlie and blasphemous: the Godhead is the man­hood, or the manhood is the Godhead. So we must say and beleeue God, that is to say, the sonne was borne of the virgine, suffered, dead, &c. 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 Paule, Rom. 1. Rom. 1.4. He was mightilie de­clared to be the son of God according to the spirit. The cause of this predica­tion or speech in the abstract, is the verie personall vnion it selfe, 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. Wher­fore, whether he be called man, he is yet notwithstanding vnderstood to be God, or whether he be called God, he is like wise vnderstood to be man. But when wee speake of the natures themselues, to wit, either the manhood or the Godhead, by these abstracted names ther is nothing els signified or meant but the seuerall natures in and by themselues. And least these ma­ner of speeches might seeme to anie man darke and strange, He preuenteth an obiection. as though christian re­ligion [Page 38] were conteined in certeine hiddē mysteries and secrets far remooued from common vse & vnderstanding, whereas ra­ther on the other side, the Holie ghost in­structing the church, touching these most darke & hidden matters, hath kept a most grosse (as you would say) and common ma­mer of teaching. Theodoretus. Two similitudes to explaine the point by. Theodoret doth rightlie and trulie tell vs, that euen the common people are hardlie accustomed to speake a­nie otherwise: for if Peter speake, who would not rather say that Peter speaketh, than say that Peters bodie or toong spea­keth? and yet notwithstanding, neither dooth Peters minde, nor his foot nor anie other member speake, but his toong or mouth.

But because these things haue euen personallie growne vp (as it were) togi­ther, and are come into one subsistence or being, that is truelie in the concret attri­buted to, and spoken of the whole, which if it were vttered of the parts of the whole considered seuerallie, and by themselues, should be falslie spoken. What more? By reason of this personall vnion, though now it be dissolued through death, Peter shalbe said to haue died and sat at Rome, [Page 39] whose soule yet notwithstanding, neither [...]s dead, neither anie where placed vpon [...]he earth. So when I say, the eternall [...]onne of God died, I consider and meane him as he is whole Christ, although I de­nominate him after one of his natures, to wit, his mortall or humane nature. So againe I say: This man forgiueth sinnes, and yet not as he is man of himselfe (for it belongeth onelie to God to forgiue sinnes) but because he is God and man in one person togither. Marke. 2.7.

And this is the manner of speaking which the ancient diuines haue called the communicating of proprieties, Communica­ting of proprie­ties, and what it is. which some do not rightlie distinguish from ma­king common, and other some disputing whether it be reall yea or no, haue be­wraied most grosse ignorance. And this may easilie be decided and determined by the vnmoouable foundations abouesaid, if we haue not a contentious spirit, where­vnto if we should not yeeld, doubtlesse the old sophisters and naturall philosophers, if they were aliue at this day, wold laugh vs to scorne. Religion allow­eth no falshood. Diuinitie & christian religion admitteth no false matter or point: there­fore that trope or maner of spech touching [Page 40] the communicating of the proprieties, is altogither true in the concret, that is in Christs person, being weighed, as if some whole thing should be considered iointlie and togither, neither was it woont other­wise to be vsed in the church. But in the abstract, that is in the appellatiue or com­mon name, or name whereby either of the natures be called, it can neuer be vsed without vngodlinesse, much lesse 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 speake of the Lords supper, haue thought needfull to be propounded and deliuered, that therefore remaining behind, may be the better vn­derstood, of which we will, by Gods grace, speake at large in the next reading or lecture.

THis is the sum of the thinges that wee spake in the former Sermon, to wit, The summe of the former Ser­mon, consisting of foure parti­cular points. that 1 al the knowledge of our saluation, 1 did depend of the knowlege of Christ: and that wee 2 had in Christ, principally two 2 things to be considered, that is to saye, such as did concerne the knowledge of his person, and such also as did concerne the knowledge of his offices. We haue heard, 3 that vnder the name or worde of person, 3 there was meant Christ himselfe: further, that that person consisted of two natures, that is, the godhead & the manhoode, both of these being so vnited and ioyned toge­ther, that the very natures themselues, & their properties also remaining sound and vnconfounded, Christ by that meanes is become, but one subsistence or being. For wee haue alreadie affirmed, the godhead so to haue assumed and taken the manhood vnto it, that they are not now two persōs, but two natures: of which two natures, the one, that is to say, the nature assumed [Page 42] or taken, is sustained and vpheld, or (as I may so say) made a persō, with the nature assuming, that is to say, the godhead: from 4 4 this wee proceeded, to speake of suche things, as were attributed to, or spoken of either of the natures, or the whole person: and wee affirmed, that they were so to be vsed, as that we alwaies preserued the v­nion of the person, and continuallie auoi­ded the confounding of the natures. For seeing these two natures, Synodus Chal­cedonensis. are as the Sy­node of Chalcedon saieth, vndiuidedlie, vnseparablie, and vnconfoundedlie coup­led together in the personall vnion: ne­cessarie is it, that either of these natures, should haue their owne proper thinges at­tributed vnto them, and therfore, not com­municated vnto others. Wherfore some things attributed to the godhead, and somthings also attributed vnto the manhood, were so proper and peculiar to the God­head, and the manhoode, that those that were attributed to the one, coulde not be spoken of the other without great impie­tie and vngodlinesse. Notwithstanding, by reason of the personal vnion (excepting alwaies that which is attributed to the whole person, and belongeth to both na­tures, [Page 43] as when Christ is called the media­tor, and such like) such things as are pro­per to the godhead, and therefore as wee haue said can neuer be spoken of the man­hoode) are yet notwithstanding attribu­ted to Christ as man: and againe, suche things as are proper to man, are spoken, and that rightlie of God, but neuer, or at no hand of the godhead. The reason is, because that the subsistence or being is denominated euen in the concret of one of the natures onelie. So by the Sonne of GOD, wee doo many times vnder­stand, 1. Timoth. 3.16. not onely the godhead of the sonne by it selfe, but Christ manifested in the fleshe. And by the GOD of glorie wee meane GOD become or made man: and like wise by sonne of man, we meane man assumed or taken of the eternall son of God.

Whereby it commeth to passe, that by reason of that personall vnion, some thinges in the concret, may bee saide of the whole person, which yet notwith­standing in the abstracte, 1. Corinth. 2.8. doo agree to one of the natures onelie. So Saint Paule affyrmeth, that the GOD of glorie was crucified, which proposition [Page 44] is not true touching whole Christ, One and the selfe-same pro­position true and vntrue in seuerall senses. that is to say, if wee regarde or consider Christ, as some whole matter, consisting of some particulars: but not true, if wee vnder­stand it of all or euery thing belonging to Christ, that is to saye, if wee seuerally and distinctlye consider his seuerall na­tures, because the name of the GOD of glorie, dooth in the abstract agree or be­long, to the onelie godhead. Wherefore this proposition is true in the sense as be­fore, whereas otherwise it is a wicked and an vngodlie thing to say, that the godhead was crucified. Likewise in the creede of the Apostles, Symbol. Apost. we say, that wee beleeue in Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God, conceiued, borne, suffered, &c: all which are truely and christianly spoken. And why so? Because that by the name of the Sonne of God in the councell, we meane not God, the word, by himselfe alone, but GOD manifested in the flesh. So the Sonne of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heauen: Iohn. 3.13. the reason is, because he that is man, is God also: and yet the manhoode of christ was at that time no where else, Actes 1.11. but on earth, euen as nowe also christs flesh being taken vp into Matth. 28.20. [Page 45] heauen, and therefore absent from vs, that Sonne of man, is yet notwithstanding present with vs, because the same christ is that true GOD, Isaiah 66.1. Actes 7.48. whome neither hea­uen nor earth can containe. Wherefore, as these propositions are false, the God­head is the manhoode, or the manhoode is the godhead: so these are true: This man is God, and GOD, the worde, is man. Nowe then, if man be truely saide to be God, by reason of the personall vni­on, it followeth therevppon, that thinges attributed to the manhoode may rightlie 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 vs now come to y ^e other part of the knowledge that con­cerneth our saluation, that is, to christes office. This office is declared in his name: Matth. 1.21. for he is Iesus, that is to say, a Sauiour, because God the father hath therefore gi­uen him vnto vs, that hee might saue vs, to wit, from our sinnes. Now hee saueth vs, by iustifieng vs, because eternall life, doth of necessitie agree with iustice or righteousnes. Wherefore hee giueth vs life, in giuing vs righteousnesse, and [Page 46] that of his meere and onely grace, through the power and effectuall working of his holie spirit: One and the selfe-same pow­er of God, ap­peareth in mans creation and mans restituti­on, sauing that this latter, in my iudgement, and before men (though not be­fore God) seeme to be the more excellent and hard worke. for euen that very selfe-same power of God, which laide it selfe open in the creation of man, must of necessity ma­nifest it selfe also in restoring of man.

This is it that I meane: as God the father did freelie through his sonne, togi­ther with his almightie power, which is the holie-ghost, create man: so the selfe-same god, dooth by sauing iustifie, and by iustifieng saue man, through his owne sin fallen from grace, and yet made againe, or anewe, as it were, through his sonne, in the powerfull working of the holie spirit. For the holy-ghost worketh in vs that in­strument which we cal 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 schooles, truelie grafted in vs, not by nature, but by gods meere and free grace. But remember, I pray you, that by laying holde of Christ, I vnderstand the apprehension or taking holde euen of Christ himselfe. Two things principallie to be considered in Christ. For wee must consider two things in Christ, that is to saie, hee himselfe, god and man, and such things [Page 47] as bee in him. A fit similitude. For example (though it may be I confes, that the similitude shall not agree in all points) if in a casket or boxe I set before a man, treasure, he that will haue the treasure hidden or shutte vp therein, must of necessitie take the cas­ket or boxe it selfe: Coloss. 2.3. euen so there are in Christ, all those treasures of wisedome and vnderstanding: yea (and to speake all in fewe wordes) all those things, which are necessarily required to our saluation. Wherefore wee must of necessitie haue him, that so we may obtaine those things that are in him, and by the meanes of them eternall life. But tell vs, by what instrument wee doo take holde of him, as it were, by a certaine hand, that hee may wholie become ours, and wee his? Ve­rilie by faith. Nowe the holie-ghost is hee, who going about to woorke in vs, this excellent instrument of faith, vseth for that purpose, the preachyng of the outwarde worde, Roman. 10.17. by which worde hee a­lone properlye woorketh inuisiblye in vs.

But that we may the better vnderstand this point, lette vs a little compare this naturall instrument of Faith, to witte, [Page 48] the outward worde with that supernatu­rall instrument, that is, the spirite.

Light of nature may somewhat helpe vs to ob­taine naturall things, but it can nothing further vs in the vnder­standing and beleeuing of heuenly things.The doctor or teacher by speaking, tea­cheth his scholers that which he speaketh. For speech is the instrument and meane, whereby we lay open the meaning of our mindes one of vs to an other, by vnder­standing whereof, they to whome wee speake, become skilfull in those thinges that wee speake: euen so it pleaseth God to vse his word written and preached, that so hee might teach vs the knowledge of saluation, yet the way and order in both of these is maruellously diuers, if not alto­gether contrary. For whereas our minde by a certaine ingendred and natural pow­er, is apt to conceiue & vnderstand world­lie things (yea, and though it be true, that some men are more apte to learne than o­thersome, yet all men generallie, are in­dued with facultie and power, to vnder­stand those points, either by bookes, or the mouth of their teacher) when wee come to the true knowledge of God, and that his heuenlie secret touching our saluatiō, God must of necessitie vse a far other po­wer, in framing and disposing our minds, that so our eares beeing purged, and our [Page 49] harts also, we may in our vnderstanding comprehend these matters, and hauing comprehended them approoue of them, yea consent vnto them, and stay our selues vpon them, or else we shall neuer attaine thereto. And this is that same inuisible working power of the holie-ghost, which graueth into our heartes that which the minde perceiueth or vnderstandeth: other­wise the pastors and techers might speak to deafe people, as it doth by too too com­mon examples appeare at this day. Ther­fore the Apostle saieth, 1. Corinth. 1.23. that the gospell is an offense or stumbling blocke to the Iewes, and that it seemeth foolishnesse vnto the Gentiles. And in another place, that it is to some, 2. Corinth. 2.16. the sauor of life vnto life, and to other-some, the sauor of death vnto death. But to whome is it the sa­uor of life vnto life? Euen vnto suche as so perceiue and receiue it, that they ad­mit, and submit themselues thereto. And yet it can not be vnderstood and receiued, vnlesse the holie-ghost doo by his power­full grace alter and change vs. Wher­fore to them then it must bee the sauor of death vnto death that doo refuse it, and cast it farre from them. Neither is God, [Page 50] or the gospell it selfe, cause of this neglect or contempt, but the verye corrupt na­ture of man: 1. Corinth. 2.14. for the naturall manne per­ceiueth not the thinges of the spirite of God.

But to come to the matter: that word of GOD that soundeth into our eares, is an instrument ordained and directed by the Holie-ghost to teach vs, that so wee maye vnderstande suche thinges as are needefull to bee vnderstoode for saluati­on, and may by true faith applie vnto our selues suche thinges as wee vnderstoode, and haue yeelded vnto. The word by it selfe. And this speeche of GOD talking so with vs, is some­times naked, as it were, and simple, and sometimes againe, is so decked and trim­med, as it were, with other things, that euen the matter it selfe, by reason of the rites and orders, The worde with the sacraments annexed therto. annected to the speech, seemeth after a sort, not to be spoken, but to be doone. Examples of the naked or bare speech, are these infinite promises of the gospell: as when wee heare this, GOD so loued the worlde that hee gaue his onelie begotten Sonne, Iohn. 3.16. that whosoeuer beleeueth in him shoulde not perishe, but haue eternall life. So [Page 51] we reade, and daily heare in the church, the writings of the Prophets & Apostles, hauing exhortations, reprehensions, and comforts adioyned to the same, according as good sheepheards, do their duetie, pub­likely and priuately. And yet there are sometimes ioyned to this word of GOD some signes, with certaine rites and or­ders, that so the speeche may not onelie beate orders, but also the thinges that are looked vppon may come to our sight. And these are those thinges that the La­tine writers call sacraments: August. cont. Faust. Memictiae lib. 19 cap. 16. & ha­bit. tom. 6. col. 349. and there­fore Augustine also called them visible words.

This verilye is certaine, that euen the most auntient Latine diuines did in­terprete that Greeke worde, Mysterie, by the Latine word Sacrament, and that not onelie in places where mention is made, of the rites and orders of the Sa­craments of the church, as of Baptisme and the Lords supper, but generally wher the question is of suche thinges as are of themselues close & secret, and far remoued from common vse. Ephes. 1. [...]. So the calling of the Gentiles which the Apostle nameth a mysterie, is of the olde Latine interpreter [Page 52] turned, 1. Timoth. 3.16. sacrament. And our whole salua­tion, is the sacrament of godlinesse with him: and the coniunction of Christ, & his church, & not the marriage of man & wife, as commonlie thorough ignorance menne haue supposed, is with him a sacrament likewise, Ephes. 5.32. Apocal. 17.7. yea & in the reuelation he men­tioneth the sacrament of that vncleane harlot, and the beast that carried hir.

To be short, nothing is more common a­mongest the Latine diuines, or commeth more often in their writings, than this worde, sacrament. And yet the Latine church hath in a more secret and narrowe signification taken and vnderstoode this terme, Sacrament, how it is vsed amon­gest vs. sacrament, namelie, for the signes and rites, which God hath adioyned to his promises, that so hee might the more fully seale vp in our hearts, the saluation that he hath reuealed vnto vs. And yet no other certainetie, so farre as I knowe, or can remember is this worde, mysterie, in the Apostles writings, vsed in that sense or signification.

Verilie, the name or word, sacrament, it selfe is amongest the Latinists of ma­ny significations: for which doubtfulnesse of the worde, we that nowe come in the [Page 53] last age of the worlde doo sustaine manye and great smartes. The Apostle calleth circumcision, a signe and a state: Roman. 4 11. and (to speake plainely, as the matter it selfe re­quireth) though I doo not willinglie de­part from wordes in vse, least one in­conuenience and mischiefe might be hea­ped vppon an other, yet I hadde leiffer that the Latin authours and writers, had still kept Paules worde.

But that we may at the length come to the purpose, What the lords supper is. let that rite or order of the Lordes supper bee a signe giuen vs from GOD, whereby hee will haue testified and sealed vp vnto vs, the communicati­on or partaking of the bodie and bloud of Christ. But because euery thing that is vsed, in, and about this holie banquet, is not of one sort, maner, order, and respect, we are therefore to marke, that euen this worde, sacrament, The word Sa­crament, in the narrow signifi­cation taken three waies. and that in this more narrowe signification, is of the olde La­tine diuines taken three manner of ways. For sometimes they vnderstand by sacra­ments, the verie whole action, in which respect both baptisme and the Lords sup­per it selfe also, are called sacraments, that is to say, mystical actions or outward [Page 54] rites, which doo represent to our vnder­standing some other certaine thing. Som­times againe not the whole action it selfe, but that which is vsed in that action, is so 2 termed, as in baptisme the water it selfe, & the sprinckling or laying it on the party baptized: and in the Lords supper, bread & wine, with the rites and orders that christ 3 himselfe ordained. And this againe, by a double manner of speech, for sometimes vnder this worde, there are meant onely the outward signes, as when Augustine affirmeth, August. that the wicked do eate Christ, as in respect of the sacrament. And som­times it is vsed for the signes, ioyned with the very thing it selfe signified, as when Irenaeus saith, Irenaeus. that the sacrament consi­steth of two things, one heauenlie, and the other earthlie: for hee calleth the hea­uenlie thing the body and bloud of christ, and the earthlie, the bread and the wine: and all that together hee nameth, the sa­crament. And this much concerning the word it selfe, or the name sacrament. Let vs now at the length come to the matter.

Sith nowe therefore, that euerie sa­crament is a signe, wee must needes put the word Sacrament in the predicament [Page 55] of relation or relatiues, as the logicians call them, that is, amongst such things as haue mutuall respectes one of them to an other. And sith relation must needes be, amongest sundrie thinges which haue mutuall respect one of them to an other, wee must therefore of necessitie confesse, that in the sacraments there is a signe, and the thing signified. Neyther when I deli­uer these 2 parts, which indeed do meete, or wherof in truth al sacraments do con­sist, do I shut out the word. August. Let the worde (saith Augustine) come vnto the element, and it shal become a sacrament. I do not therefore exclude or shut out the worde, which is, as it were, the life & soule of ei­ther of the parts, and to which the sacra­ments themselues, as wee haue saide be­fore, are adioyned as seales. And thus farre foorth, euen they agree with vs, which otherwise doo most of all dissent from vs. Wherefore lette vs nowe see, which bee those signes, and which bee those thinges signified: for in this point we doo not all agree. Wee call water the signe in Baptisme, and the thing signifi­ed we call Christs bloud, by the washing whereof (we hauing obtained forgiuenes [Page 56] of sinnes, and being mortified in our flesh) we are saued.

But concerning baptisme I will not nowe say anie more. In the supper cer­tainelie there are two signes, or rather, signes of two sortes. For some of them are certaine materiall and substantiall signes: as for example, the bread and wine, other-some are actions and sacramentall rites, which are not for all that vaine or superfluous acts, but haue there certaine sacramentall consideratton and respect, from the Lordes institution, of whiche point wee will speake heereafter. I say then that in the Lordes supper, these are outward, materiall, visible, and as you would say palpable signes, that God hath annected vnto his word, euen the bread and wine.

This the Papistes denie, as who (af­ter that they haue confessed, that the sa­craments doo consist, of a signe, and a thing signified) doo yet notwithstanding afterwardes take the bare accidents of bread and wine, as, coulour, forme, and such like, for the signes themselues: for they maintaine, that in the Lords supper there remaineth not, the substāce of bread [Page 57] and wine, but that that vanisheth away, & that there cōmeth in the place thereof, the substance of the Lords bodie and bloud. Therefore in their iudgement, the signes shall be the accidents. And which I be­seech you? Forsooth whitenesse, roundnes, and rednesse, if they consecrate red wine, which accidents they doo by a new name call kind, shew, or forme. Augustine. But as Augu­stine rightlie teacheth: Vnlesse there were a certeine analogie, proportion, and agree­ment betweene the things signified, & the signes themselues, they could not be coun­ted sacraments. Now betweene accidents & substances there is no agreement, there­fore the sacraments, as they call them, shal not be sacraments: for it behooueth the signes so to agree with the things signifi­ed, that they may represent to mēs minds that which they signifie. I will speake somewhat more plainelie. A similitude. If admoni­shing some one, I would haue him with his eies to behold, and with his mind to cō ­ceiue a man, I will not set before him the image of a horsse, or of an oxe, to looke vp­on, because that outward shape or forme of an horsse, or of an oxe, cannot beget in his mind the conceit, portrature, or image of [Page 58] a man, although all these things, that is to say, man, horsse, oxe, &c. are referred to one generall word or terme, to wit, liuing creature: much lesse then shall the shape of an herbe, or forme of an horsse, bring to my minde and memorie, the forme or shape of a man: and least of all others shall those accidents which are void of all substance, as whitenesse, rednesse, round­nesse, &c. call to my remembrance things that in deed are, to wit, the bodie & bloud of Christ. In that papists, make the acci­dents of the e­lements the signes of the sa­craments, there followeth three absurdities therevpon. But it was the Lords purpose in his supper, to offer vnto our mindes and thoughts the verie food of our soules, that is to say, Christes bodie deliuered to death for vs, and his bloud shed for the forgiuenes of our sinnes, betweene which 1 and those accidents, there is no proporti­on and agreement, whereas yet notwith­standing bread and wine, the verie food of our bodies in deed, doo most fitlie euen set before our verie eies almost, that same spirituall nourishment that we must haue from him.

2 And sith no man can be fed by accidents, how can such accidents then represent 3 that same eternall food? Furthermore, though by the meanes of some accidents, [Page 59] materiall things may be set before our eies, yet all accidents doo not belong to, or agree with euerie matter: for manie both white and round things may be be­held, which shall not for all that represent a bodie: and who hath told them that the bread which Christ brake and gaue vnto his disciples, was white or round, in such sort as they bake it and make it? There­fore the true signes of Christes bodie and bloud, are the verie bread, and the verie wine, which thing the apostle declareth, 1. Corinth. 10.16 saieng: The bread which we breake, is the communion or partaking of the bodie of Christ: and the cup that we blesse is the partaking of the bloud of Christ. And that same consubstantiati­on or transubstantiation, is a filthie for­gerie and deuise of satan.

Now let vs come to the thing signi­fied: and first wee will declare, Enemies to truth are of two sorts, that is, ig­norant and ma­licious. what manner and kinde of signification this is that wee speake of. For this is ob­iected against vs, partlie by some that know not what is deliuered and taught in our churches, and partlie by other some that doo maliciouslie slander vs, that wee saie wee set out to be beheld [Page 60] in the sacraments, as it were a vaine pic­ture, or a certeine dead image, that maie stir vp in vs the remembraunce of Christ, when yet notwithstanding we are woont euerie where to beat vpon this point, that by the sacraments Christ is not signified vnto vs (as when we beholde Cesars i­mage & picture we are woont to remem­ber Cesar) and nothing beside: for in the signes, hauing the word adioined vnto them, we teach Christ and all his benefits to be so represented to vs and our mindes, that he, togither with all his graces is gi­uen to vs to be inioied of vs, and in deed to be participated, but yet after a spiritu­all maner, and by faith. Wherefore this action is not vaine, neither are the signes, and the very rites thereof naked & emptie matters, sith that which is signified, is both most truelie offered vnto vs by God himselfe, and most effectuallie receiued of such as beleeue. This kind of significati­on Bernard well declareth, by the simili­tude of a ring which the bridegrome deli­uereth vnto the betrothed bride, to the end that so she may not onelie thinke vpon the bridegrome deliuering it, but that by this pledge of promise he might after a sort de­liuer [Page 61] himselfe ouer vnto hir also. And ther­fore Christ did not onelie say: Matth. 26.2 [...]. This is my bodie, but also he added, Take ye, and eat ye. Mainteiners of the truth char­ged to be defa­cers of the sa­craments. Ye see brethren what we thinke and hold touching these mysteries: also what iniurie is offered vs, when men say, that we doo euacuat & disanull the sacraments, and transforme them into certeine vaine spectakles and shewes of Christ that is absent. Other mens ma­lice must not hinder vs from speaking truth. Let vs notwithstanding as plain­lie as possible we can declare, what that is which is so in outward signes, set before our minde to be looked into, that yet not­withstanding it is a faithfull and belee­uing soule trulie exhibited and offered, to be partaken by faith. And what is that I say? Truelie the bodie and bloud of the Lord. But who teacheth vs this, or so in­structeth vs? Euen Gods owne sonne: for he saith: This (that is to say, Matth. 26.26.28. This bread) is my bodie. And this (that is to say, This wine conteined in this cup) is my bloud. By the way, I will put you in minde of one thing, Contention a­bout wordes though it be not alwaies good, yet when it may cleere the truth, it may well be vsed. least anie man might be offended because I say not This is my bloud, in the masculine gender, but This is my bloud, in the neuter gender, refer­ring it either to the wine, which is the [Page 62] neuter gender in Latine; or to the cuppe, conteining the wine, which in Greeke is the neuter gender also: for though I loue not to striue about words, yet this point is well woorthie the marking. Certein­lie he that saith: Hic est sanguis meus, in the masculine gender, that is, This is my bloud, dooth point to, or shew foorth no­thing but his bloud. But it is certeine, that as before Christ did not propound his bodie vnto his disciples without bread, so euen in this other part when Christ said so, he would not set his bloud before his disciples without wine. Therefore this Greeke Pronoune [...] being of the neuter gender, must needs be referred to the signe (that is to say [...], the cup, which is therefore expreslie put downe in Paule) concerning which, or of which, the bloud it selfe may be spoken: where­vpon this ariseth, that the Greeke Pro­noune [...], this, cannot declare anie o­ther matter or thing than this, that is to say, this thing or matter, which I hold in my hāds, to wit, the wine that is cōtained in this cup, which indeed cānot be expres­sed by this word, Hic, a Pronoune of the [Page 63] masculine gender, as the meanest Gram­marians may well and easilie perceiue. Christes verie bodie & bloud is the matter o [...] thing signified in the Lords supper. But to returne to the matter: By these thinges you may perceiue, what we vn­derstand by the name or word of the thing it selfe, or by the terme trueth, sacramen­tallie sigifined, namelie the bodie & bloud of the Lord Iesus.

Wherefore first of all we dissent from 1 the anabaptists, In the matter of the supper we agree not, either with the Anabaptists or sacramentaries. who in sted of the matter of the sacrament signified, doo put downe I knowe not what shadow or figuratiue thing, as though it were some warlike cognizance, pledge, or watch-word, by which christians might be discerned from such as be no christians.

Next we dissent from them likewise, 2 Or with such as vnderstand it onelie, concer­ning Christes merits sunde­red from Christ himselfe. who for the matter of the Sacrament, established Christes force and power, as also his merites, but yet seuered from Christ himselfe. For Christ said not this is the merit of my bodie, Luke. 22.19.20. which is deliuered for you, but This is my bo­die, and this is my bloud: neither is it without cause definitiuelie before hand added, which is deliuered for you, and which is shed for you. So that it could not more plainelie haue beene said, that [Page 64] verie Christ himselfe (whose bodie was giuen for vs, and whose bloud was shed for vs) is truelie and verilie giuen vs in the supper, to be the food of eternal life to vs. And therfore the matter of that sacra­ment is in deed that verie bodie which he offered vp for vs on the crosse, and that bloud which he shed for the forgiuenesse of our sinnes: so far off are we from dee­ming or thinking of some figuratiue or ty­picall bodie, or some allegoricall bloud, as certeine most fond men (who doo not in­deed well vnderstand their owne wordes, minde, and opinion) are not ashamed to speake and write of vs, that we so holde. Now I come to the third point of this discourse: for first I haue spoken of the signes, and secondlie of the things signi­fied. Two sorts of people that in the sacrament of the supper haue erred in and about the right coniun­ction of the signes, and the thing signified. Now we are to see in the third place, what is the knitting or ioining togither of the signes, and the thinges signified, wherein for the most part consisteth the whole determination of all this controuer­sie touching the sacraments. The papists haue altered the ioining togither of the signes, and the thing signified, into a trans­mutation or change one of them into ano­ther: than which, what can be more ab­surd? [Page 65] For certeinlie, if the bread and the wine be in deede changed into the bodie and bloud of Christ, as they affirme, then we cannot chuse but affirme also, that this is not to ioine the signes with the thinges signified, but to change the signes into the thinges themselues, or else the signes vanishing away or perishing, to put the thinges themselues in their roome. But let these men go, as who in deed deserue not anie confutation, their assertions be so absurd and blockish. There are others, at 2 this present no lesse hard & sharpe against vs, than the verie papistes themselues, who will haue the thing signified, that is to say, the verie bodie of Christ so to be ioined with or vnder, or in the bread, that in that verie place where that bread is, there must also be the bodie of Christ: which in like sort is to be vnderstood al­so, touching the wine and the bloud of Christ. If a man then should demand, where is the verie bodie & bloud of Christ in the action of the supper: A grosse absur­ditie or two fol­lowing consub­stantiation. if wee will answere according to their opinion, we must say, that it is truelie and in deed in our hands, and in our mouth, and therfore certeinelie, vnlesse it presentlie vanish a­way, [Page 66] within this bodie of ours, with, in, or vnder the verie signes of the bread & the wine, being eaten and drunken. Now we will shew, and that by reasons not fet from humane philosophie (as our aduersaries vntrulie say we vse such) but from the ve­rie word of God it selfe, Two things to be handled: viz. the confutation of the aduersa­ries, & the main­tenance of the truth. that this consub­stantiation (as we may trulie call it) is no lesse absurd and erronious 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 diuine matter. Wherefore our iudgement is quite & cleane contrarie to either of those opinions before rehearsed. To begin, we hold that such things as are spoken of the sacraments, must be vnderstood sacra­mentallie. For what I pray you is or can be more vpright than to haue all thinges spoken, rightlie vnderstood and perceiued, as the nature of that matter will beare, whereof there is question? A similitude or two, explaning the point he hath in hand. Certeinelie such thinges as the lawiers speake tou­ching the law, must be vnderstood euen as they are vsed in that verie science of the law: and we must needs giue the selfe same iudgement of all things and arts [Page 67] whatsoeuer. Such thinges therefore, as are taught and deliuered touching the sacraments, must be sacramentallie vn­derstood. What manner of coniunction then is the coniunction or knitting togi­ther of the signe and the thing sacramen­tallie signified? Verilie it is sacramen­tall. The signes therfore, and the things are ioined togither by that relation or re­spect, which is betweene the signes and the thinges signified: which yet once a­gaine, I doo most plainelie declare after this maner.

When we heare some man speaking vnto vs in the toong we vnderstand, the words that come to our eares and strike them, doo verie liuelie represent that vnto our mindes for the expressing and signifi­cation whereof they were vsed. Another simi­litude. For ex­ample: as soone as we heare the word Rome, presentlie wee thinke vpon that citie. If a man name Cesar or the empe­rour, Cesar or the emperour presenlie commeth to our memorie. The reason whereof verilie is that, that is well deli­uered and taught in schooles: to wit, such thinges as are in the voice or words are signes of the affections, that are [Page 68] in the soule or minde. There is the selfe same consideration to be had of the sacra­ments: for the sacraments are nothing else, but visible words, that is, represen­ting, through our eies vnto our mindes, things signified, as words heard, doo by our eares conuey vnderstanding to our minds likewise. Therfore these visible sa­craments of bread & wine bring to passe, that when I see and receiue that bread, and that wine ioined with the word of God, I doo withall conceiue in my mind, and vnderstand, that bodie that was giuen for me, and that bloud that was shed for me, as though I were led or carried euen vnto the thing it selfe being present. And because I am commanded not onelie to looke vpon these signes with mine eies, but also to take them, Math. 26.26.27. eat them, drinke them, therefore dooth the faithfull minde euen lay hold of, and applie vnto himselfe those things so signefied, as they are deli­uered and offered. Touching which point we will largelie discourse in the fourth place, to wit, when we shall come to han­dle this question, how both the signes and the thinges signified are receiued of vs: whereas now we onelie dispute or speake [Page 69] touching the sacramentall coniunction of the signes themselues, Two errours mainteined by the aduersaries. with the thing sig­nified. Such as are not content with this sacramentall coniunction, fall into a dou­ble errour, not onelie that they doo in a 1 a great and grosse errour verilie establish a real vnion of the signes with the things signified, of which we haue spoken before: but also they further adde this, that euen 2 in that verie place wheresoeuer the signes are offered to such as come to commu­nicate, there is present the flesh and the bloud of Christ, that is to say, they would haue vs confesse that euen his verie hu­manitie or manhood is in deed present there, and is to be receiued or taken by bodily instruments. As for vs, we affirme that Christ in respect of his manhood, The substance of that we are to know or be­leeue, touching the coniunction of the signes with the things signified in the Lords supper. e­uen as when he was vpon the earth, was no where else, but in that verie place where he was conuersant, so now he is not anie where else, but aboue all hea­uens, into which he ascended: and that therefore he is not now togither with the signes offered to the bodie, but togither with the signes truelie deliuered and gi­uen to the beleeuing soule, euen as by the word we heare it, and by the signe we see [Page 70] it. Now it remaineth that we doo by some reasons fet from the word of GOD well wey and consider whether they or we swarue from the truth.

The first reason. Rom. 1.3. Rom. 9.5. Galath. 4.4. Philip. 2.7. Hebr. 2.16. Iohn. 16.7.28. Matth. 28.20. Acts. 1.9.The holie scripture witnesseth, that the sonne of God did personallie take vn­to himselfe a true and verie bodie. The selfe same scripture dooth attribute vnto the flesh of our sauiour Christ assumed, and that both before and after the glorifi­cation thereof, such things as doo plaine­lie prooue the truth of a naturall bodie, as that he came, that he went away, that he was sometimes present, and sometimes absent. These things then doo of necessi­tie follow the trueth of Christes bodie, 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 heresie of the Marcionits or Dokits. Marcionits or Dokits, they were called Marcionits of one Marcion, whose principall error was this, that Christ did not ap­peare indeed, and suffer indeed, &c. vpon the crosse, but in phan­tasie or ghostlike apparition. Concerning Dokitiae see ho­mil. 1. before going. Tertullian wrote most lear­nedlie against this Marcion. But these things are manifestlie taken away, by their opinion, who say that Christes flesh is now also and that in deed and verilie pre­sent, both into the heauens, into which he ascended, and in the earth likewise, and that also in all [Page 71] places, in which that bread and that wine is deliuered or giuen to such as come to receiue it. I will say nothing of them that are not ashamed to affirme that Chri­stes flesh euen from the verie first mo­ment of the personall vnion, was togither and in deed present, both in the crib, and in the heauen, yea euerie where present. To this first of all they answere: The aduersaries obiection. that Christes bodie cannot without great wic­kednesse, be made subiect to the law of nature, for that bodie that was taken into the vnitie of the person, hath recei­ued farre other vnmeasurable giftes and graces.

But heere I beseech you wey well what we answer: The answer. We confesse that there is great regard to be had of that same grace and gift of the personall vnion, by which wee cannot but confesse that the manhood of our sauior Christ was so high­ly exalted, that onelie the Deitie or God­head excepted (according to which he is euen greater than himselfe) it hath attei­ned and gotten a name, which is aboue all names, that is to saye, Philip. 2.9.10. that all things created are subiected vnto the same, yet for all that, that followeth not heerevpon, [Page 72] which these men coldlie suppose, or fondly imagine: for this is the question now be­tweene vs, whether Christes manhood do in deed place it selfe euerie where, or in manie places togither at one time, to be receiued with our hands and mouth, and not what it hath obteined from another, or in respect of the other nature, to which it is personallie vnited: but rather whether this proprietie (which in deed is proper to the Godhead alone) be in the manhood, to wit, to be euerie where, or in diuers places at one and the selfe same season. Schoole men faile manie times in terms, but now and then hit the matter. And this is that matter which the schoolemen haue by a barbarous word, if you respect terms, but not by an vnfit word, if men will wey the matter, called by the name of habitual grace. Now this difference being alrea­die put downe, which skarslie anie vn­lesse they be altogither most contentious, will denie, we say, that such doo in deed e­uacuat Christ, or make him of no force, as denie Christes flesh, Though Christ man, be not e­uerie where, yet Christ God and man is e­uerie where. as in respect of ano­ther, that is to say, not in it selfe, but ac­cording as it is ioined to another, to wit, so farre foorth, as it is personallie vnited with the person of the word, to be true­lie and in deed euerie where: much lesse [Page 73] will wee denie him to be present in that place, wheresoeuer in the worlde his sup­per is administred. For whie should wee denie, that concerning christs flesh, which in a certaine measure hath place in al bo­dies: yea, euen there where som one whole thing, is become or made one, after an o­ther sort, than by personall vnion. A similitude. A tree or a house is many times saide to be in a riuer, whereas yet notwithstanding the vpper part, either of the one or of the o­ther, appearing aboue the water or riuer, and being considered in it selfe, is indeed in the aire, and not in the water: in like sort, I am said to sit in this seat or chaire, whereas yet notwithstanding, I sit, but in one part of my bodie onelie. Likewise I am saide to speake, whereas onelie the tongue, considered, in, and by it selfe, speaketh. The reason and trueth of these speeches dependeth vpon this, that a tree, a house, a man, &c: is one selfe-same whole thing, compacted and made of his seueral partes. For otherwise that coulde not be truely affirmed or saide, of two things in deede separated and sundered one of them from an other. Application of the similitude. So a man may truely af­firme whole christ to be euerie where, and [Page 74] therfore much more with the bread in the supper, and yet no otherwise, but so farre foorth as Christ is considered, as some one whole substance and beeing, and so also as the proprieties of the natures bee not by this meanes confounded. But the whole of Christe, that is to saye, euerye thing belonging to Christ, can not ther­fore for all that, bee sayde to bee anye where else, than to bee conuersant in one place, at one and the selfe-same time: for that can no more be spoken of Christs hu­manitie in it selfe (vnlesse wee will with Eutyches and Brentius, Eutyches. Brentius. confounde the proprieties of either nature) than this my hande can bee saide to sitte, or these my feete may be said to speake. If there be any that vnderstande not these things, I beseech them to learne to vnderstande the same, and to haue more regarde and consideration, both of themselues, and of others, throgh whose sides, they would, if they could destroy the truth it selfe.

He turneth that vpon the aduer­saries which they obiected a­gainst the truth.To come to the point. They doo not spotle the manhoode of Christ, of that his infinite maiestie, who teach that fleshe of his to be the flesh of the Sonne of God, but they rather that transfourme and [Page 75] chaunge him who is God and man in one person, and make him but to beare or ca­ry, God or the godhead: neither yet do they spoile y ^e manhood of his maiestie, or bring him backe vnto the state and condition of other men, which according to the grace that they call habituall (that is to saye, cleauing to the verie flesh of Christ, as, if it were to his peculiar subiect or mat­ter wherevnto it shoulde sticke) doo ac­knowledge it to bee vnspeakablye more high and excellent than all other thinges whatsoeuer wythout exception (excepting onely the godhead of the worde, according to which he himselfe is greater than him­selfe, as we said before) but they indeede bring it to nothing, or into some image or signe in their owne conceipts at the least, who, while they goe about to attri­bute supernaturall thinges vnto him, at­tributing yet notwithstanding vnnatural things to him, or thinges against nature, do of necessity destroy and ouerthrowe, e­uen mans nature it selfe: for that ceaseth to be humane, which hauing lost the es­sentiall proprieties thereof, must needes cease to be y ^e which before it was. But we wil incounter with thē by an other reson.

If this verilie be to diminish Christs glorie, and to debase his maiestie, to af­firme, that hee can not indeede be at one time in manie places, howe much more then must this be the debasing of hym, to say, that hee was mortall, yea, that hee did indeede die? And yet wee see, that this is that, which the Apostle alleageth for the commendation of the most excel­lent loue that the Sonne of GOD carri­ed towardes vs, Rom. 5, 6, 7, 8, &c Philip. 2.8. which was yet so muche the more great and excellent, by howe much he did the more debase himselfe.

Nowe then, if the reall taking of all in­firmities vppon himselfe (sinne onelie ex­cepted) hath taken nothing at al from his glorie, Hebr, 4.15. or impaired and lessened the same, how much lesse hath this doone it, that he hath for euer taken, together with verie flesh, the verie proprieties of flesh, and that vnchangeably, and without confounding? But they obiect further, Another ob­iection. The answeare thereto. that they meane not to abolish those proprieties. Thē they must needes attribute contrarie thinges, to one and the self-same subiect, & that al­together in one and the self-same respect, to wit, to be circumscribed and tied to a place, which is the naturall propertie of [Page 77] an instrumentall body, The aduersaries absurditie aswel against reason as religion. and yet notwith­standing, at one and the self-same time to be both in heuen, and in innumerable pla­ces, or else, euerye where, if you will, in earth: and so one and the selfe-same flesh shall haue a quantity sette it, and also bee without quantitie, that is to say, shal be both a bodie, and not a bodie. And what is this else, I pray you, but to make eue­ry thing of anie thing, as wee commonlie say? but let vs heare what they do yet fur­ther obiect. The third ob­iection. They will haue that time that went before the glorofieng of our sa­uior Christs flesh, to be distinguished from that time, in which that his fleshe was re­ceiued vp into glorie. We grant it: An answeare thereto taken from a double absurditie. but withall we say, that if this reall coniunc­tion of the flesh with the bread, doo depend of the glorification of Christes fleshe, it 1 can haue no place, in that first institution of the supper, because this fleshe was 2 not as then glorified, but rather most nie to debasing & humbling. Besides this flesh is offred vnto vs at this present to be par­taken by vs, not as glorious or glorified, The transfigu­ration of Christ mentioned, Math. 17.2.3. &c feareth not the aduersaries, but (that I may so speake) euen, as it were, hanging vppon the crosse. Against this exception, they oppose and set the mi­racle [Page 78] of Christes transfiguration. But what agreement is there betwixt these two things? For of a truth, nothing vnna­turall or against nature fel out in y ^e trans­figuration, neither was there any thing there done, that did destroy or ouerthrowe the essential proprieties of christs flesh: e­uen as righteous men shal not therfore or then cease to be very men, when they shall shine as the sun, Daniel. 12.3. or brightnes of the firma­ment or stars. But to be euery where, or in many places at one time, is a property so cōtrary to al things created (as which are indeed finite) that it belongeth onely vnto the godhead alone, because that alone is infinite. To conclude, we do in one worde as it were, Glorification, and wherein it standeth. answeare thus. Glorification tooke not from Christs body a corporal or bodilie nature (that is to say, quantity or circumscriptiblenes) but it abolished the infirmitie & weaknes therof, which weak­nes he for a time tooke vppon him. Nowe by the worde infirmity or weaknesse, wee meane not any essential proprietie in chri­stes flesh, but that onely which sin brought into mans nature, yet altogether without the spot or taint of sin, as it was in christ. This is that I meane: where Christs flesh [Page 79] is saide to bee infirme and weake, before the glorification of it, that is not spoken in respect of the Godhead: to the which hee alwayes hath bin, 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 alwayes re­maine safe and sound (as I haue said here­tofore) those proprieties, of which the very truth of the body it selfe consisteth: amon­gest which, quantity, and therfore circum­scriptiblenes obtaineth so excellent & no­table a place, Cyrillus. that Cyrill feareth not to af­firme, that God hymself could not possibly bee euery where, if hee were partaker of quantity. They affirme Christes bodie to be euery where. He calleth them so, because they set themselues against nature and reason. Iohn. 20.27. Therfore these mē I mean both Vbiquitaries and Antiphisitae, hauing opēly denied the quantity of Christs flesh, must either gette them to Eutyches his tents, and take part with hym: or if out of the words of Christ (who after hys re­surrection, willeth some to beholde & feele him) they wil prooue, that he hath not put off the quantity of hys fleshe, then they must shewe vs, that Christes fleshe, ac­cordyng to the quantity thereof, can be at one tyme euerye where, or in manye places, whych euen the godhead it selfe, [Page 80] if it haue quantitie, can not perfourme, as Cyrill openly and truly writeth, whose authoritie otherwise, these men doo most especiallie abuse: for this reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar: yea, they must prooue, that the Angelles lied, when they saide: Matth. 28.6. Hee is risen, hee is not heere. For whatsoeuer distinction they may vse, if wee can shewe a place where Christes flesh is not, then wee are sure it can not be euery where: and if it can not bee euerye where, then neither can the whole flesh it selfe be at one time, and to­gether in manie places. Hence also it may appeare, Brentius and his followers. howe absurde and vnreaso­nable Brentius his opinion is, and those that followe him, Philip. 2.6, 7. who attribute these wordes of the Apostle, The forme of God, and the forme of a seruant, to the onely humanitie or manhood of Christ in it selfe. For they vnderstand by the forme of God, that their owne forgerie and de­uise of all maiestie, and all presence, as they call it, with which, as they saye, the flesh of Christ was verily in it selfe indu­ed from the very first moment of the per­sonall vnion, which it pleased him for a time not to make manifest: and this is it [Page 81] they meane by the worde, humbling and abasing. And the forme of a seruant they call that state and condition, He confuteth Brentius, and such as main­taine him, as v­surpe the place of the Philippi­ans, or rather falsely interpre­ting it. in which it pleased him to remain, so often as he wold not vse the forme of God. Very well saide surelie: if a man wil attribute to one sub­iect or matter, two essentiall forms, what shall he els doe, but confound one and two together, and make them both one? And what is that else, but to bee mad outright? Then it remaineth, that by this worde or terme, forme, these men vnderstand, ney­ther the godhead it selfe, nor the manhood, but a diuers conditiō and state of this his manhood, as which inwardly, & in it selfe, was beautified and adorned, with all the powerfull graces & effects of the godhead powred into the same, and yet that he did not alwaies manifest and disclose them.

But if this be true, Two absurdities or errours. we must learn to de­fine the personal vnion, not by the effusion 1 or powring foorth of effectual graces, but of vertues rather. Moreouer, vnderstand as large an effusion and powring foorth 2 of giftes and graces into the flesh, as pos­sibly a man can, I woulde faine see, or heare some that coulde tell me, how it shal not be a most open blasphemie for a man [Page 82] to affirme, that the manhoode may by a­ny meanes, wythout robberie be made e­quall to the godhead? What shall become of that sentence so often repeated in the ancient Fathers and olde writers, to wit, that the Sonne as in respect of his fleshe, is lesse than the Father, and inferiour vn­to him, yea, and therefore lesse than him­selfe, and inferiour vnto him selfe, be­cause hee is, as in respect of his godhead coequall with his Father? Wherefore that interpretation is to bee refused as false, yea, as wholie and altogether sa­uoring of the heresie of Eutyches. An other obiec­tion of the ad­uersaries. They alleadge yet this also: The place (saye they) is not of the substaunce of a bodie: and that therefore the substaunce of the body is not abolished, though place bee taken away from it.

The answeare.Certainely it would greeue me to the heart, to beholde the maintainers of con­substantiation, to bee so driuen to their shiftes, that by propounding such absurde things, they should giue themselues ouer to be scorned of the most popish and grose maintainers of Transubstantiation (vp­on whose foundation, yet notwithstanding they builde vp their owne conceipts:) sa­uing [Page 83] that I see, euen those very defenders of Transubstantiation themselues (who haue bin broght vp with the teats of that most filthie sowe Sarbona) to be so thrust to the wall in this point, The name of a college in Paris, where the po­pish diuines are maintained. that they suppo­sed, that with this dirt, the truth might be so dawbed ouer, He very nota­bly correcteth himselfe. that it shoulde not lie open to euery mans eie and sight. What woonderfull impudencie and shamelesnes is this (beare wyth me brethren, and par­don me, O yee hearers this my most iust sorrow and greefe) for men to deale so so­phistically and subtilly in Gods church, which is the schoole-house of trueth? The worde Bo­die in authors referred to two predicaments, to wit substance and quantitie, but yet in diuers respects. Any man indued with reason can hardly be ig­norant of this, that this worde bodie is somtimes referred to substance, and some­times to quantity. Therefore a bodie is sometimes called, a corporall or bodilie substaunce, consisting of matter, forme, and substaunce: and sometimes it is cal­led that which consisteth of three dimen­sions or mesurings, to wit, length, bredth, and depth. So in this question somtimes wee consider Christs bodie, as that same materiall, substantiall, visible, and palpa­ble thing, which Christ tooke vnto him for our sake: and after this sorte verilie [Page 84] quantitie, as it is an accident, is not parte of that substaunce. And sometimes againe, wee vse this worde bodie, that so, that which is defined, by that three-fold quantitie, may be the better distinguish­ed and knowne, The aduersaries must either con­clude against reason, or else yeelde to the trueth. from that which is with­out quantitie. And after this manner ve­rily, these men must either prooue, that the definition dooth not declare the sub­stance of these thinges which are defined: or else they must with vs confesse, that a bodie is nothing else, but that verye three-folde quantitie continue, as they call it, that is to say, such a quantitie, as whose parts are ioined together in a com­mon terme.

If this be once taken away, it can­not be denied, but that of necessitie christs true and very bodie must perishe, whether wee consider it, as it is glorified, or as it is set in weaknesse: yea, Christ himselfe shall be accused of lieng, who proueth the truth of his flesh euen after his resurrecti­on, by those inseparable accidents, that is to say, his corporall or bodily quantity.

He passeth to an other dis­course touching the word Place.Hitherto wee haue spoken of the bodie, nowe let vs see what may be saide touch­ing the place. What if out of Augustines [Page 85] plaine and euident woordes wee shoulde saye: Take from bodies space of places, Augustine. they shall be no where: and because they shall be no where, they shall not bee at all? What will they say to this? That is true in other bodies will they say, but in Christs bodie not so, or, it agreeth not thereto. But I answeare, that it dooth most fitlie agree to Christes body, of the absence of which from the earth, Augu­stine dooth most properlie reason in that Epistle.

And truly, if it were true, that christs body were in diuerse respectes different from ours, then he could not be of the selfe same substaunce with vs, and like vnto vs in all things (sinne onely excepted. Hebr. 4.15. He explaneth the question.) I will adde yet somewhat more, that the matter may appeare more plaine, though by that which hath beene saide, it be eui­dent enough. When wee affirme, that a place can not be sundered or taken from a body, that is, from that thing, which consisteth of three dimensions or measu­surings before mentioned (which thing the maintainers of consubstantiation do, whē they flee to those same starting holes of his omnipotencie or almightie power, [Page 86] which heereafter wee will God willing discouer) wee meane not by this woorde place, The word place considered af­ter two sortes. 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 sorte this or that place is so euidēt to the body, that by most light & easy motion, one being remoued or taken away, another succedeth: but we cal a place that same condition or state, of a true & very instrumentall body wherby it necessarily followeth, that whersoeuer the thing it selfe is, it must be circumscribed in that place, or tied therto, neither can it, while it is there be in any other place. This accident, though it be not the verie substance of the body, as in respect that y ^e bodie it self is a substance, yet verilie 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 hee vnderstandeth how vaine and sophisticall that exception is. But (say they) Christs body walked vpon the waters: therefore they do not presently take away the truth of Christes body, An other obiec­tion with the answere therto. Math. 14.25, &c. that attribute vnto it an extraordinary condition, or such a state [Page 87] 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 infirmitye and weaknes also, coulde accomplish many things ouer and beside the ordinary lawes of mans nature. But this is the question, The state of the question in con­trouersie. whether this doctrine concerning the reall presence of Christes very fleshe in many, or all places at once, can stand wyth the truth of Christs flesh, whether wee consider it, after or before the glorification thereof.

Now we stoutly and safely deny that Christs fleshe at any tyme, can be in ma­ny, or in all places at once, and wee saye, that it can not by anye necessary or fitte consequence bee gathered, either from this hys walkyng vppon the waters, or in that hee entered into the place where hys disciples were, the dores being shut, or in that hee arose againe, the stone of the Sepulchre or Toombe, Iohn. 20.19. Math. 28.2. Certain reasons alledged for proofe of his as­sertion. not beeing remooued or rolled awaye by mannes handes. And of thys wee haue sundrye reasons: for firste these myracles seeme rather to bee doone, in the waters them­selues, made harde and firme, not one­lie [Page 88] vnder Christs feete, but vnder Peters also, than in Christs owne bodie, the like whereof also is to bee saide touching the wall and sepulchre, Matth. 14.29. the heape or weight 2 whereof did sodainely yeeld vnto the body of the creator. Moreouer, though we shold grant that they were to be seene 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 thin­nesse, as a man woulde say, of a bodilie heape, either abolish a bodie it selfe (sith it dooth at any hand, take away the quan­titie of a body) or implie contradiction, as they are woont to say in the schooles. 3 But we affirme, that a true and very bo­die, can neither want quantity or circum­scriptiblenesse, but it shal cease to be a bo­die, neither can it be at once in one place, as circumscribed, and in an other place, as not circumscribed, but that we must of necessitie conclude, both that it is a bodie, and that it is not a bodie, which are as­sertions meerelie contrarie. The summe of all these thinges is this, or tendeth to this ende: namelie, that this opinion of the reall consubstantiation of Christes flesh with bread and wine, is most false [Page 89] and vntrue, as by meanes whereof the trueth of Christes fleshe is vtterlie abo­lished. Now againe, The second rea­son against con­substantiation. See the first before, pag. 65. euen by this most weightie argument following, may this forgerie and deuise be confuted, namelie because it plainlie and wholie standeth vp against the analogie and proportion of faith, so little need, or iust cause haue the defendors thereof, to call vs backe to the power and force of faith. Acts. 1.11. Marke. 16.19. The scripture witnesseth in manie places, that Christes flesh ascended vp aboue the heauens, and that there also at this day it remaineth, we may not therefore seeke for it in earth: otherwise it should not be an ascending, but a vanishing away for the time. Cer­teinlie, A generall rule no man can trulie be said to come or go vp thither, where he now was, or to go away, descend, or be absent from the place where he remaineth. Looke there­fore in how manie places these things are spoken of Christ, according to his flesh, and that without anie figuratiue kinde of speech by so manie most strong and inuin­cible testimonies, there is confirmed vnto vs the true taking away of the bodie of Christ from vs, and also that reall dotage of the presence of Christes flesh vpon the [Page 91] earth, y ^t is to say, thys opinion which the Dokits & Marcionits mainteine suffici­entlie confuted. Of these see be­fore, pag. 70. As for that that they vrge against vs, An obiection answered. saieng: How absurd is that, that Christes flesh is now in heauen and no where else? It is easilie answered, that we speake no otherwise than Peter, Acts. 3.21. Acts. 1.11. yea than the angels themselues haue spoken. And though they say further, that by this meanes we shut vp Christ, as it were in a prison, where as yet notwithstanding the right hand of God (that is to say, his hea­uenlie power and authoritie) whereat he sitteth is euerie where. What for all this? Answer vs this, and tell vs whether that being on the earth, & absent from heauen (for he had not ascended thither where he was then present) or whether that being in the virgins wombe, or wrapped vp in swadling clothes, lieng in the crib, he was shut vp in prison? Yea sith euerie bodie is conteined in his owne place, yea & things without bodies, are yet notwithstanding included in the proprietie of their nature (for onelie the Godhead is infinit) what can follow else of this their most absurd argument and reason, Absurditie in reason, by the aduersaries argument. than that all things are full of prisons and prisoners? And [Page 91] though we should say, that vnder y ^e termes of sitting at the right hand, Philip. 2.9. there is meant the verie selfe same thing which the apo­stle simplie and without trope saith, that Christ (to wit as he is man) hath receiued, that is to say, a name aboue all names, yet it should be no lesse fond and absurd, ther­vpon to gather and conclude the presence of Christes flesh in euerie place, A similitude. that if we would affirme that the bodie of some king is as large and wide, as the bounds of his kingdome are brode. But say they, Another obie­ction answered. Christ being present gouerneth all things. We answer, that is true, as he is God, and yet the person of Christ is not for al that rent in sunder or diuided. For euen Christ man, being euerie where the Lord, is pre­sent also euerie where, much more in the supper, In what respect Christ is pre­sent euerie where. howbeit not as in respect of the manhood it selfe but as in regard of ano­ther, that is to say, as he is one person, not in himselfe as in regard of his manhood, but in the verie nature of the Godhead it selfe, of which the humanitie was so assu­med, that it is one subsistence or being to­gither with it, as a little while ago we declared. Therefore the man Christ is in deed present, to wit, as he the selfe [Page 92] same is Christ God, and yet the manhood of Christ is not now in anie other place than in heauen. The third obie­ction answered. Ephes. 4.10. But it is yet further ob­iected, that Christ went vp into heauen to fulfill all things. I grant it: wherevpon also I gather, that hee fulfilled not all things, till he ascended, and that therefore the definition of the personall vnion taken from habituall grace, as they call it (of which we haue said some what before) is false and fond. Yea, I gather this further, that if he did truelie and in deed ascend, that that his flesh was not in heauen be­fore he ascended thither, & that it ceaseth to be on the earth, after that he ascended from thense into heauen. But say they, he ascended to fulfill or fill all things: The same obie­ction vrged, yet answered. ther­fore he filleth all things. We answer that he performed that, for which he ascended, that is to say, he filled or fulfilled y ^e whole mysterie of our saluation, 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 Christs ascension, as it had the beginning of it from his comming into the earth. But if we had rather refer these words (which also we may do) to the frute [Page 93] that followed his ascension into heauen (by which, not as a seruant, but as a sonne he tooke vpon him, and entered into the kingdome and gouernment) then we shall perceiue, that he therefore ascended, Iohn. 14.2 [...] that sending downe the Holie ghost, he might bestow vpon his church all necessarie gifts, for he ascended that he might euen lade men with his graces, Ephes. 4.8. and heape vp benefits, blessings, and gifts vpon them, which seeing the apostle himselfe spea­keth euen in so manie words as it were, what man in his right wit would beleeue them, that will transfer that to the verie person of Christ, which is spoken of the of­fice of his kingdome, and the mightie and effectuall power thereof. The fourth ob­iection 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 hense they may gather, this their presence in all places, or in manie places, or that which they call maiestie euerie where (it is woonderfull and piti­full to behold, what monstrous opinions in a verie short space haue sprong vp) why may not we affirme the same likewise touching Philip? Acts. 8.39.40. for he suddenlie did so banish out of the Eunuches eies & sight, [Page 94] that he was found afterward at Azolus. And what was woont sometimes to be tide the prophets themselues, appeareth by the example of Elias his disciples. 2. Kings. 2 3. The fift obie­ction. Acts. 7.35.36. An other place they obiect Stephan saw Christ, therefore he was on the earth. I denie that, for he being on earth, saw him set in heauen, as the holie historie decla­reth. And to what purpose I pray you, should he see him in heauen, if he be at his side, on the earth? So that this miracle is to be considered, not in the verie bodie of Christ, but in Stephans eies. Neither did that rite and ceremonie of the church, vsed from all antiquitie, whereby men with a loud voice were admonished to haue their hearts lifted vpward, saieng: Lift vp your hearts, The vse of these words: Lift vp your hearts, in the celebrati­on of the sup­per. tend to any other end, but to cause men to mount vp to heauen. For to what purpose should that saieng, Lift vp, be vsed, if wee had that in our mouths and in our hands which we seeke for? The sixt obie­ction answered. 1. Corinth. 15.8. Acts. 9, 4.5. &c. August. in psal. 54. Againe: Christ was seene of Paule as he went to Damascus. Augustine shall answer this for vs. He writing vpon the fourth and fift psalmes, saith: The head that was in heauen, cried alowd for the bodie that was in the earth. Much like [Page 95] vnto this forme, Acts. 22.17. is that which they yet ob­iect, namelie that Paule saw the Lord, when he praid in the temple: therfore the Lord was in the verie temple, we confesse that he saw him, but in a vision or trance. It was therfore a spirituall vision, neither belongeth it anie whit at all to this pre­sent matter in hand: and yet though we say it was a spirituall vision, we meane not that Paule 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 receiue the same answer likewise. The last shift of the aduersaries fullie answered. They run at the last to y ^e same starting hole or shift (which I call by that name, as in respect of them that doo abuse it) of the almightie power of Christ. And when we set against them this sure ground, that God cannot per­forme somethings, then they throw out a­gainst vs bitter outcries, as though that we were manifestlie and altogither blas­phemous and euill men. For mine owne part I would require this one thing of them, The authors re­quest to the ad­uersaries, stan­ding vpon two parts. that they would with an vpright mind suffer such as amongst vs shall an­swer them, and that they would not be ca­ried so friuolouslie, yet weaklie (the Lord [Page 96] knoweth) against such, as whose life (God be thanked for it) freeth them from all suspition of blasphemie. The first reason. If euerie one denie the power of God that saith there is something which God cannot doo, then they certeinelie were blasphemers, that said, God deceiued, God lied, and that he could not die. Yea but they will say, that in as much as these things are not of anie part of his power, but rather imbecilities and wants, this is not to make GOD weake or feeble, but most mightie rather. And this certeinelie is the same, that long ago amongst others, Theodoretus. Theodoret did an­swere the Eutychian heretiks, who defen­ded this verie selfe same doctrine, by the verie selfe same reason. Let vs stay heere then a while, and as we say in the pro­uerbe, pitch our staffe for a season. It is without all controuersie or doubt, that God, who at the first made all things of nothing, is able vtterlie to turn all things vp side downe, yea euen with his verie becke or breath to abolish and destroy them all: and yet for all that he cannot effect or bring to passe this, that that which hath beene should not be, Certeine things that God can­not doo. or that some one thing should be and not be, at [Page 97] one & the selfe same time, or that it should at one and the selfe same time, be such a thing, and not such a thing. The reason is because of two contradictorie speeches, one of them must of necessitie 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 contradictorie contrary one of them to another. Wherefore he shall conuince GOD of lieng and himselfe of follie, woosoeuer he be, that will cloke and couer Gods almightie power with this deuise, by which Christes bodie is circum­scriptible, and yet it shall in deed togither be present in manie places at once (which properlie belongeth to that onelie infinit nature) whereby also this is forged & fra­med, to wit, that the bodie is finite and in­finite, great and not great, yea a bodie and not a bodie. The second reason. And this I dare aduouch fur­ther: Whatsoeuer God would once haue without exception, to be vnchangeable, that cannot be changed by him, much lesse can it be abolished or doone away: the reason is, because God cannot depart from himselfe, or be contrarie or vnlike vnto himselfe. And I make this without all doubt or controuersie, euen that such is [Page 98] Christes bodie, namelie, that it hath al­waies beene, & must of necessitie for euer be a verie or true bodie, 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 ma­nie gods, he could not be God, to whō ano­ther created wer equall, neither could that created god (so called abusiuelie) be God, because that to be God, & to haue a begin­ning of time or in time, are merelie cōtra­dictorie things or speeches. The conclusion of this point. Christs flesh therfore could not become the Godhead, & therfore could it not be indued with y ^e in­communicable proprieties of y ^e Godhead, that is to say, with such proprieties belon­ging to the Godhead, as cannot be cōmu­nicated to any other, but y ^e Godhead alone, amongst which, this, to be infinit, & to be wholie & at one time euerie where, is not reckoned in the last place. Is this I pray you to deny Gods almightie power? or do we in this follow y ^e vngodlines of y ^e blas­phemous felow Plinie? Plinius, and his errors. for he denieth that God is able to bestow immortalitie vpon mortall people, or to call backe again such as are dead: which is not only falslie, but [Page 99] wickedly spoken also. The selfe same par­tie denieth that God is able to kill him­selfe, or to bring to passe, Truth may be propounded by some, though they perhaps doo not well vnderstand the cause thereof. that he that hath liued, and is now dead should not haue li­ued then when he liued, or that twise ten should not be twentie. And heer in howso­euer he fel fouly in the former, he hath not missed the truth, but rightlie denied these things to be in God: onelie heerein he did most beastlie 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 con­trarie to his nature. that not knowing or be­leeuing the nature of God, he would haue these things to be arguments and proofs of Gods imbecilitie and weaknesse, wher­as contrariwise, we know and beleeue, that he cannot therefore doo these things, because he himselfe cannot perish, nor lie, nor be changed.

But loe we are now at the length come to them, who seeme most equall and vp­right aboue all other, who also auoiding all other forgeries and deuises, doo stay themselues onelie vpon these wordes of Christs: This is my bodie, Such answered as vrge the bare words: This is my bodie. and This cup is my bloud: we must say they beleeue Christes wordes though he speake neuer so new and vnaccustomed matters, yea though he speake things that our flesh and sences cannot beleeue. We grant all this. [Page 100] But what if they seeme not agreeable to the truth, and the analogie or proportion of faith? Verilie they are to be beleeued indeed, seeing that the sonne of God is the truth it selfe, & yet these things or points must be so expounded, Two rules meet to be obserued in expounding such places, as seeme contra­rie to truth. that they may alto­gither agree with the 1 rest of the places of holie scripture, and the cheefe 2 groūds or heads of christian religion: for whatso­euer doth dissent, though it be neuer so lit­tle from these rules, must of necessitie be false and vnsound. Now we haue heere­tofore at large declared and prooued, that such and so corrupt is that interpretation which establisheth either transubstantia­tion, or a reall consubstantiation, of the signes and the things signified. Two christian frutes arising by expounding the words of the supper sa­cramentallie. But on the other side if we grant a sacramentall being of the thing signified (which as it is true in other sacraments, so also in this mystery) then we shall preserue 1 the truth of Christes flesh, and vphold 2 the analogie and proportion of faith. Wherefore this interpretation is to be admitted & recei­ued, as true, and well agreeing with right and sound doctrine. An obiection answered. But say they, there is no place heere for a trope or figure: yea the verie plaine word is simplie to be ob­serued. [Page 101] But who I beseech you hath gi­uen you this rule speciallie, sith this is most manifest, yea and so vsuall also, that when they speake of sacraments (which also are themselues figures) they speake figuratiuelie. Neither thinke I that anie man can skarslie bring foorth or allege an example of a contrarie speech. You must therefore allege a cause, or render a rea­son, why that which is of force in other sa­craments shuld not likewise be of strēgth and power in this sacrament, or speech touching the same. But let vs some what more nighlie looke into the matter, and well wey all and euerie of the words of institution. First I demand, what the thing is pointed at, or painted out by this Pronoune demonstratiue, Hoc, that is, The Pronounce Hoc, that is This, expoun­ded. This. The papists answer, that it is an identicall proposition, that is, The popish opi­nion declared and confuted. that one and the selfe same thing speaketh of it selfe, and that therfore nothing is shewed forth, but euen the verie bodie it selfe: as if a man should say: This thing is my bodie. But we say, that of necessitie that must be demonstrated & shewed, which he hauing taken & broken, did deliuer vnto his disci­ples, to wit, bread: which thing also the a­postle [Page 102] hath declared when hee said: The bread which we breake. 1. Corinth. 10.16 Is it not the cō ­municating of the bodie of Christ? And the word (rup) added in the other member or part of the institution of the supper, doth plainlie prooue to all men that are not vt­terlie contentious, that this word (this) is as much, as if Christ shuld say this bread. And heere I confesse there is no trope at all, the reason is because it was needfull for vs to haue the signe properlie & fitlie declared, that we might not be deceiued. But our aduersaries (among whom also a trope is almost as odious as an heresie) be­ing demanded, Vbiquitaries, or consubstantia­tors, and thier opinions decla­red & confuted. What answer they? Veri­lie that vnder this Pronoune Hoc, that is, This, there is set out vnto vs, both y ^e bread and the bodie also, that is to say, both the signe & the thing signified, Their opinion is contrarie being in verie 1 deed & essentiallie vnited togither, as they say. To scripture, But (as erewhile I said) 1 Paule v­seth the onelie word bread, and certeine it 2 is, that that was shewed, whiche Christe took & brake. To the nature of Christs body. Shall 2 we say, that he took and brake his owne bodie? Certeinelie if they will so affirme, this reall coniuncti­on 3 of the signes & the thing signified, To their owne opinions. shall 3 not depend vpon the words of instituti­on, [Page 103] seeing that euen before that Christ tooke it and brake it, it was not bread on­lie, but his bodie also. Wherefore they must of necessity confes, that these words: This is my bodie, & these againe: This bread is my bodie, meane and signifie all one thing: which not onlie all the ancient fathers do affirme, in innumerable places. Luther. Brentius. but Luther in manie places, and Brentius also, both in his booke called Syntagma, and in his catechisme likewise, Seluerieus. Eberus. yea Selue­ricus & Eberus, doo as it were in so many words testifie also this truth. If yet not­withstanding they will haue euen the bo­die vnited to the bread, to be shewed out thereby. I answer they must of necessitie then admit the trope or figure Synecdo­che, and that therefore the institution of Christ, or the words of the institution, can not be vnderstood without a trope or fi­gure. He proueth the aduersaries to fall into that which they dislike in o­thers. And what man that is in his right wits shall they persuade, that the word bo­die can at one & the selfe same time be spo­ken of the bread & of the bodie without an other Synedoche also. And this you see what they haue gained, who thinke it, and publish it in others to be a horrible heresie by a trope or figure to vnderstand y ^e words [Page 104] of the supper, wheras they themselues are inforced and found out, to make a double trope or figure. Now let vs come to the word Est, The word Est, is expounded. that is to say, Is. Seeing that whatsoeuer is, is not after one sort (for to be, hath place in all the predicaments) when these men from hense gather thus, or doo after this sort expound these words. 1 This bread is Christs bodie, therfore it is essentiallie Christes bodie, doo they not I beseech you speake as if they should say: 2 This is a liuing creature: therfore it is a man? And againe, doo they reason lesse fondlie, when they gather thus: This bread is Christs bodie, therfore this bread is Christs bodie, not absent but present? Now, whereas they say, that the word bo­die, because it is a substance, cannot be o­therwise spoken or vttered, than substan­tiallie, I say they should haue left this to the papists, who are therefore inforced 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 therfore also this propositiō was false, the bread is the bodie) except they granted ei­ther that y ^e bread it selfe became nothing, [Page 105] or by changing were tourned into a sub­stance of another sort, to wit, Vbiquitaries, in vrging the ba [...]e letter, as absurd as Papists at the least. the substance of his body. Therfore these men alone do keep or vrge, & that most fondlie, the bare worde or letter. But these men of whom I now speake, though in outward shewe and speech, they refuse all tropes and fi­gures, in the exposition of these words of the institution, doo yet notwithstanding ouer and besides the two tropes aboue mentioned, that is to say, The aduersaries by power of trueth constrai­ned to fall into three tropes in the exposition of a fewe words though other­wise the name be odious to them. the figure Sy­necdoche diuersly vsed in deede bring in an other, and that same very strange and woonderfull: when they will haue this speech: this bread is my bodie, to signifie and meane as much, as if Christ shoulde haue saide: my bodie is verily present, wyth, or in, or vnder this bread. Concer­ning which, this is my minde, that whoso­euer hee is that vseth this last forme or manner of speaking dooth not shew, what the bodie it selfe is, but rather declareth where the body is, and therefore vseth the worde (is) not in the predicament of substance, but in the predicament of Site as they call it.

Nowe I come to speake of that worde Body. The word Body handled. The thing that about this matter [Page 106] is laide vnto our charge, The aduersaries charge. is this, that in­stead of the true bodie of Christ, deliue­red to death for vs, wee substitute and place, I can not tell what typicall or fi­guratiue, or as it pleaseth them to call it, fantasticall bodie, when wee affirme that the bodie is spoken of the bread, not that the bread is the very bodie it selfe, but because it is as a signe and pledge of that true body of his, which was giuen for vs.

The answere thereto.But is this to ascribe vnto Christ, a fained body, as these men slaunder vs? Or is it not rather rightly to declare and shew in what sense, that true and onelie bodie may bee saide or spoken of the bread, to wit, not as it is bread, but in as much as it is a sacrament of that his bodie? Ther­fore all these interpretations following, which that stincking slanderer Illyricus tosseth too and fro, Illyricus and his slaunders. as if they were contrary one of them to an other, that is to saye: This bread sacramentally signifieth, or sacramentallye is Christes bodie: or a­gaine: This bread is the sacrament of Christes bodie, doo in deede and trueth, and altogether expresse but one and the selfe-same iudgement and matter.

Now that the worde bodie is in many places vsed, by all the old right beleeuing writers, for the verie signe of the bodie, All the auntient Fathers vse the worde bodie, for the signe of the bodie. our aduersaries must of necessitie whe­ther they will or no, confesse, sith that they feare not to affirme, that Christes bodye is made, broken, consumed, and why shoulde it not bee so likewise, when it is saide, to enter into the mouth? To be short, what strife and stubbornenesse is this of theirs? They dare not denie the bread to be the sacrament of Christes bo­dy: and why then will they not allowe of this interpretation? Heere is the reason forsooth, because they woulde haue it called the Sacrament of the bodie pre­sent.

Then y ^e controuersie shal not be, The state of the controuersie or question, is not about the inter­pretation of the wordes of insti­tution, but a­bout the pre­sence of Christs bodie. yet tou­ching the interpretation and meaning of these wordes of the institution, in which there is no mention at all, neither of pre­sence nor absence, but herein onelie shall they consist, whether that bodie (of which that bread is saide to be the Sacrament) be absent or present: which controuersie, I can not so much as suppose howe these men should determine out of these wordes This is my bodie.

The second part of the Lords supper, to wit, the institution of the cup, and what is meant thereby.Hitherto wee haue spoken of the first part of the Lords supper, to wit, the bread: but now let vs come to the other part, to wit, the cuppe. But tell vs (I pray you) what wee must vnderstande by the woord cup? Verily, by their confession, euen that which is contained in the cuppe, that is to say, the wine, and yet ouer and be­sides that, the bloud of Christ, as they will needes haue it. The former of these I grant, to wit, that by the cuppe should be meant, the wine contained in the cup: but the latter I denie, to wit, that that wine should be in substance the very bloud of Christ, and this I do deny standing vp­on the reasons, which I haue before spo­ken and alleaged. But howsoeuer it be, whether there be meant therby this wine alone, or together with the wine, euen the bloud it selfe: yet needes must these deadly enimies of tropes and figures ac­knowledge one figure here, to wit, a Me­tonomia, of the thing containing for the thing contained, yea, and that same verie trope of the same figure Synecdoche, (which wee haue spoken of before) wher­by it commeth to passe, that the wine and the bloud are saide to be the bloud.

Now then let them tel me how, See for the proofe of this Genesis 17.9. with­out a crope or figure, that shall be counted the couenant it selfe, by meanes whereof, the couenant is established? And yet this further I would gladly demaund of them, if the bare word or letter being so precise­ly obserued, that reall consubstantiation must of necessity ensue, how it can be that this should not followe likewise, that the signes beeing not onely distincted, but in very deede and truth separated and sunde­red also the body it selfe shoulde not like­wise in deede bee separated and sunde­red from the bloud? Consubstantia­tion erronious, and al that is obiected for i [...] most weake. I many times think­ing, and that earnestly of this one matter, to wit, why diuers did so greatly vrge this same rule Consubstantiation, euen as if it were the principall point of all our re­ligion: of a truth, nothing could come in­to my minde but that which was most ea­sie to be confuted. As for y ^e that they say, An obiection. that vnles Christs very body and his very bloud be beleeued to be so present, that it may be receiued with the hands and with the mouth, or else the bread and the wine, shall be but emptie and void signes, I say it is of no force. In good sooth, suppose yee that yee speake the trueth? Belike [Page 110] then all the sacraments that the Fathers had, The answeare [...]ken from an absurditie. before that Christs flesh was indeede created were voide, and of no force. Their Sacraments (saith Augustine) were in signes diuers, but in matter equall. But in what matter were they equall? Euen in Christ, the only matter of the sacraments: for that same spirituall word, that is, (as the selfe-same writer vpon the 77. August. in psa. 77 psalme expoundeth it) signifieng some spirituall thing, was Christ; & they did eat the same meat that we eat, 1. Corint. 10.2.3. and did drinke the same drinke, to wit, Christ that was to be born, as we eat and drinke Christ alredy borne, who is a spirituall meat and drinke. How vntrue therefore is it that the signes are of no force, except the thing signified, be­ing in deede also present bee coupled and ioyned with the signe? 2 A second reson, standing vpon comparison of the element of baptisme, with the elements of the supper. Yea shall we say, that the water of Baptisme, is an idle signe? & yet I neuer hard of any man that would say, that the bloud of Christ was indeede consubstantiated together wyth the wine. But against this they replie saieng: the reason or cause of that is, be­cause the Lord saide not, that that water was his bloud. Let vs grant that, and yet in the meane while wee haue gained this, [Page 111] that y ^e sacrament is not abolished, or made of no force, though the signe bee in one place, and the thing signified thereby bee in an other, so that both of them be truly offered and giuen. And this much, or hi­therto haue we spoken of this third point, that is to say, of the sacramentall coniunc­tion or ioyning of the signe with the thing signified.

Now the summe of this true and right beleeuing iudgement is this, to wit, The summe of that which hath bin saide, touch­ing the sacra­mental coniun­ction of the sig [...] and the thing signified. that that is a sacramentall coniunction, wher­by it commeth to passe, that through gods ordinance, that which is signified by the signes vsed, though nowe it be neuer so farre from vs (I meane Christ himselfe, as in respect of his flesh) is yet notwith­standing, through the power of the holie ghost, but yet in suche a spirituall sorte and manner, as wee shall declare heereaf­ter, as truely and verily offered vnto vs, and giuen vs, to be enioyed of vs as verily as the signes themselues are looked vpon wyth the eies, touched with the handes and receiued and perceiued also wyth the mouth.

But let vs now come at the length, The fourth or last part of this discourse. to the fourth or last question and points, to [Page 112] wit, what manner of taking or receiuing there is, both of the signs themselues, and of the thing signified. Concerning the ta­king or receiuing of the signs, there is no controuersie or doubt made of it, A syllogisme. but that it is naturall and outward, because it is manifestly and plainely perfourmed of all them that come vnto it, by bodily instru­ments and meanes. The maior. But as for the things signified, to wit, that very flesh of Christ, and that very bloud of his, they are so re­ceiued and taken, euen as they are present and offered. The minor. But they are present and of­fered also, to our mind and faith, because they are nowe (as wee haue saide) not on earth, The conclusion. but in heauen: and therefore they can not bee taken or receiued 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 bellie? This foode belongeth not to the bellie, but to the minde: Beleeue and thou hast eaten: Wherevpon also this likewise followeth, that all that come to the Lordes table (as the same Augustine saith) receue the body of the lord, Augustine. that is to say, the sacrament of the Lordes body, to wit, the bread vsed at [...] [Page 115] may be one, euen as thou and I are one

And in one worde, as you would say to finish the matter: if onelie the mem­bers of Christ are to be saued, then they must needes confesse, that wee are tho­rowe faith truelye grafted into Christ, and that euen before wee come to the supper: in so muche as, no manne can rightlye and orderlye come to the supper, which is not nowe already, both in bap­tisme, and in the worde, That followeth not, that the aduersaries fantasie. become a mem­ber of Christe, and therefore is vnited with Christe him selfe. And yet it doo­eth not heerevppon followe, that the institution of the Supper is superfluous, by which wee doo not indeede at the first pushe, but yet notwithstanding in pro­cesse of time, doo growe vppe more and more in Christ. For him that wee doo al­readye possesse, must wee yet still dayly seeke: and the more in number or strength that the obiectes of our faith, so muche the more meete is, that that meane mea­sure of faith that wee haue, beeing stir­red vppe in vs, it shoulde become so muche the more effectuall and power­full.

For else what doo these men gather [Page 116] which wee may not, euen from the very first institution and celebration of the Lords supper, as safly collect against the repetition or often administration of the same? A reason of the assertion. For certainely if we conclude, that the Lords supper is therfore superfluous, because we receiue nothing therein, but that which wee receiued before, in the worde and baptisme, then this also will followe therevppon, that it is altogether vnprofitable, to repaire the second or third time to the Lords supper, seeing that hee that commeth thither the seconde or sun­dry times, receiueth nothing more than that very selfe-same thing, which before hee had laide holde of and receiued, than when he came first thereto. The second obiection, with the answere therto. But they say, there is giuen to all that come thither, not bread alone, but that bread which is the sacrament: otherwise Christs words shold be frustrate saying: This is my bodie. I grant all this, and yet I deny the conse­quēce. Both things, that is, the signe, and the thing signified, As man stan­deth of two parts: so accor­dingly two things are offe­red in the sup­per. is giuen or offered to all: therefore all receiue both. This han­geth not together: for two things are of­fered, one to the body, the other to the minde: the one is to bee taken holde of by [Page 117] the meane of the body, either to life or to death: the other is to bee apprehended by faith, and yet but to life onelie. Is it a­ny maruell then that two thinges beeing to bee receiued by seuerall instrumentes and meanes, though perhappes they bee both offered in one action, as they saye, the one of them should be receiued, by eue­ry one that bringeth the common instru­ment of the body: and the other apprehen­ded but of them alone that bring wyth them that same spirituall and onelie fit instrument to apprehend Christ by? No verilye. And yet heere againe I pray you marke, howe great the strength of trueth is.

Those that contend so stiffely, and that also wythout any profit to the church about vnwoorthie communicants (for to what ende shoulde wee trauaile so muche about them? A distinction voide of reason and religion.) Doo notwithstanding di­stinguish, betweene such vnworthie per­sons as liue not christianlie enough, or o­therwise are not sufficiently prepared for receiuing of the supper (yet so as they feare not to affirme, that euen they also eate Christes fleshe, though it be to their destruction vnlesse they repent) and such [Page 118] as are altogether the wicked and vnbelee­uers, who receiue nothing but the bare signes.

But if that same reall Consubstan­tiation which they fantasie bee true, then this will ensue therevpon, that not onelie all reasonable creatures without excepti­on, receuing the signs, but the very beasts (let there bee reuerence in hearing this that I nowe say, A warie, but yet withall, a most necessarie cau­tion. and let not any manne take it, as though I spake blasphemou­sly) eating that bread and drinking that wine, shall haue receiued also the flesh and the bloud of Christ. An obiection answered. But they except fur­ther against this truth, that the vnworthy are saide to be guiltie of the Lordes body and bloud. Wee graunt that too, Is it because they did vnwoorthily receiue the body and bloud? 1. Corinth. 11.27 No in deede: But be­cause they did eate vnwoorthily of that bread, and drincke vnwoorthilye of that cuppe: 1. Cor. 11.28, 29. or, because they discerned not the Lordes body, for that same vnwoorthie vsing and receiuing of the holy signes or pledges redoundeth vnto the contempt of the thing signified and offered, A fit similitude. euen as he may iustly be accounted guiltie of some crime: yea, of treason if you will against [Page 119] the Emperoures Maiestie, that in con­tempt or reprochfullye dooth violate the Emperours picture or image. Wee see then, that the wicked are become guiltye of the body and bloud of Christe, not that they haue receiued them (vnlesse a man will take the body for the signe of the bo­dye, which is oftentimes vsed in the an­tient Fathers) but because they haue tho­rowe their vnbeleefe reiected or refu­sed them. For Christ him selfe can ne­uer be sundered from that his quickening power, Christ and his graces are ne­uer sundered. wherefore looke of whom soeuer hee is receiued (nowe indeede hee is re­ceiued onely of the beleeuers) they must of necessitye bee deliuered from eternall death, Iohn. 5.24. as he himself plainelie beareth wit­nesse.

Nowe whereas these men except a­gainst this trueth, An obiection shortlie answe­red. that christ is deliuered to some for iudgement, and that thorowe the very fault of the hearers. We grant that also, but yet so, & in respect as Christ is thorowe their vnbeleefe refused, and cast from them, and not receiued of them by faith.

Lastly, whereas these men suppose, The last obiec­tion, with the answere therto. that Christ him selfe can not bee truely par­taken, [Page 120] vnlesse hee be indeede apprehended both by the handes and mouth also, The last obiection, with the aun­sweare thereto. and that therefore we holde a communicating not of Christ himselfe, but of his effica­cie and power, let vs a little consider this falshoode, and weigh this slaunder. First therefore we must knowe, that when we remoue a bodily eating, that so wee may establishe a spirituall and mysticall eat­ing: that both these must bee vnderstoode not of the thing it selfe which is commu­nicated or partaken, but of the maner of communicating or partaking. For nei­ther did Christ himselfe say: Luke 22.19. This is the merite or benefite of my death: but this is that my body, which is giuen for you: neyther doo wee suppose, that Christ himselfe can be lesse vnskilfully separated from his efficacie, A similitude. when the question is of Spirituall nourishement, than if a manne woulde denie, that we had neede to eate bread it selfe, and drincke wine it selfe, that so afterwardes wee might drawe or fetch bodily nourishment from the same.

But wee saye and affirme, that this manner of communicating or partaking, is not bodilie, neither yet that it can be [Page 121] perfourmed by bodilie instruments, or meanes, but altogether spirituall and mysticall, as which is performed by faith alone, which faith imbraceth that matter, Faith alone im­braceth the words and sa­craments & all the graces offe­red vs therein. that is offered vnto vs in the word and sa­craments. But if they will denie that this can be performed, because of such a great distance of places, let them then cease at the last to accuse vs of vngodlinesse, as though we would either denie Gods al­mightie power, or giue sentence touching this mysterie, by the rules of worldlie phi­losophie. And yet we will not denie, but that this obiection may then haue some place, If absurdities or errors be yeel­ded vnto, then they will be in­finit, & no mea­sure of them. if by communicating or partaking we vnderstand a reall applieng or mix­ture of Christes bodie 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 bodie, as it were soul­dered and glewed togither of innumera­ble bodies of beleeuers, being indeed mol­ten togither as it were with Christes bo­die. But fie vpon this monster, and let vs learne alwaies to driue it far from vs: for who perceiueth not that the bodie arising or flowing from this felowship or commu­nicating and belonging altogether to a [Page 122] spirituall life, is mysticall? Wherfore we are truelie, but yet after a spirituall sort and mysticallie, become one with Christ himselfe through faith, that so from him there may flow into vs true life. A similitude. And e­uen as these our members being natural­lie ioined with the soule, doo receiue from it sence and moouing: so should we after a spirituall and vndeclarable maner (for great is the mysterie of that spirituall ma­riage, that is betweene Christ and his church, Ephes. 5.32. as the apostle largelie and lowd­lie declareth) liue in Christ, being ledde and gouerned by his spirit, and he againe manifest and declare his powerfull wor­king in vs. Now tell me, is this the abo­lishing of that partaking that wee haue with Christ himselfe, or doo we not ra­ther make it a diuine and heauenlie par­taking? But if with these men we would make it a cōmunicating with the mouth, then this partaking or communicating should be no woonderful or excellent mat­ter. We cannot ap­prooue of a bo­dilie communi­cating or parta­king with the mouth, because that were to spoile our faith, and rob God of his almightie power & truth. For what I pray you is more natu­rall and vsuall, than if anie thing that is in deed present, be deliuered vs to eat, we take it in our hands, and swallow it down thorow our mouth? But that we, though [Page 123] as now poore wretches we be placed on the earth, & not els where, should notwith­standing, truelie and in deed become the verie members of the flesh and bloud of Christ himselfe, who now according to his flesh remaineth in heauen, and no where else, and should fetch from thence the verie iuice in deed of eternall life, not­withstanding that woonderfull great di­stance of place that is betweene him and vs, this I say passeth all mans vnderstan­ding, and is a most euident testimonie both of Gods truth, and also of his almigh­tie power.

And let this suffice also for answer to these slanderers, who crie out, that wee transforme this holie mysterie into an i­maginarie ghost or conceit, in that we do attribute all this wholie to our mindes & faith: If the aduersa­ries conclusion be true, then there will insue therevpon two grosse errors. for if they doo trulie conclude this against vs, what remaineth then but that we affirme likewise the baptisme of chri­stians to be a certeine vaine fantasie or apparition, and their saluation also to be 1 2 in imagination, and not in truth, Two similitudes conteining in them arguments from the lesse to the more. who die before they can come to be present at, or partakers of the Lords supper? Now if naturall vnderstanding it selfe and appre­hension 1 [Page 124] be so powerfull and effectuall, that we being holpē by these faculties become skilfull in so manie things, shall not faith that excellent gift of the Holie ghost, worke this in vs, that wee shall through faith trulie and in deed apprehend & take hold of that verie thing, which God offe­reth vs, to be receiued by faith, though it 2 be neuer so far remooued from vs? And sith by the heat of the sun, though it be ne­uer so far distant from vs, the whole world is after a sort quickened and made liuelie and strong, shall not Christ be able, though his flesh and his bloud remaine in heauen, so to become in deed our mysticall head, that he may powre into vs the iuice of e­ternall life? The conclusion of all. But of these matters wee haue spoken thus far. My purpose was (brethren) largelie to discourse of these points, because of the slanders of certeine ilwillers, that so by this meanes, the true and sound doctrine of our churches, being made knowne, none of them that repaire to this church shuld refuse our assemblies, speciallie the holie supper which we mind God willing, within few daies to admi­nister, but rather that we should euery one of vs religiouslie celebrate this holie ban­ket, [Page 125] earnestlie intreating the Lord to re­streine troublesome spirits, to confirme right beleeuers, A godlie praier. and (to be short) to grant vs all this grace, that being of one minde in him, we may in this world lead an in­nocent and vnblamable life, and at the last be receiued into eternall life and blessed­nesse, by our Lord Iesus Christ: to whom with the Father, and the Holie ghost, be all praise, and glorie for euer and euer: So be it.