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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is diuinitie, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ſubſtance that we are. Afterwards the church vſed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is nature, dooth not agree to the diuinitie, for it is deriued or commeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vſe this word perſon. Now amongſt diuines, and in their writings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is ſubſtance, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is perſon, are diſtinguiſhed after this ſort:Subſtance and perſon diſtinguiſhed. vnder the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the plurall number, are meant the perſons which are in the cōmon eſſence or being, hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto, whereby one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a perſon is ſeparated or diſtinguiſhed from the other, and by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is ſubſtance, God or the Godhead it ſelfe is ſignified and meant, but the Father, the ſonne, and the Holie ſpirit, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ye communicate propertie of a reaſonable ſubſtāce, becauſe many did throgh very great error, freelie & indifferentlie vſe theſe two words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is perſon, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for one and the ſelfe ſame thing. So the Latine writers for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 is vnited with the forme or ſhape: ſometime an accident with the ſubiect: & 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 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 ye neglect thereof bringeth forth great confuſions & troubles in theſe diſputations & matters. Certainely, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, vniting, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .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 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 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 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 matter he was moſt foulie deceiued, for beſide that the Godhead is vnchangable, it would follow, if that were true which 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 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 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 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 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 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 ye 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 &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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

TO cleare, yea, to void al the controuerſies, that frō time to time haue crept into the church of Chriſt, concerning the matter of the lords ſupper, theſe three circumſtances are meete eſpecially to bee conſidered.

1. Corinth. 11.23 1 Firſt, who ordained it, to wit, Ieſus Chriſt our lord and ſauior, which tendeth to two eſpeciall ends: firſt, to prooue his eternall deitie or godhead, becauſe it belongeth to God alone, and none other, to inſtitute and ordaine holie ſignes and Sacraments in his church, whereof alſo it ſhould ſeeme there is very great and good reaſon, both in as much as the Church it ſelfe is,1. Timoth. 3.15. the houſe of the liuing God, and his peculiar inheritance: and alſo becauſe it belongeth to him alone, to giue that virtue & ſtrength vnto elements of common and vncleane by ſin, to becom purified and holy thorow grace: ſecondly, it ſeemeth to teach vs, to haue a more reuerent regarde to come to the ſound knowledge and religious vſe thereof, not onelie becauſe hee being God, and the ordainer therof, hath all power in his owne handes, to puniſhe the prophane contemners and abuſers of the ſame, but alſo becauſe hee, of whome wee haue that that we haue, not onely as in conſideration of our name, Chriſtian, but alſo as in reſpect of all other both ſpirituall and bodily graces, hath inſtituted the ſame for his own glorie and our good.

2 Secondly,Matth. 26.26. we are to conſider when it was inſtituted, to wit, before his death and ſuffering, and that immediatelye after hee hadde with his diſciples eaten the paſſeouer, by which we may ſee the Lorde Ieſus had as great eare for vs, as for the fathers, before his being and manifeſtation in the fleſh: prouiding alſo thereby, not only for our forgetfulneſſe, that we might haue the continuall remembraunce of his death & paſſion before our eies,1. Corint. 11.26. vntill his comming againe, but for our inſtruction alſo, this being plaine to vs, in that circū ſtance of tyme, that foraſmuch as ye bread was broken in the ſupper before his bodie was crucified on ye croſſe, that bread could not be that ſame naturall body, that was crucified on the croſſe, &c: as Papiſtes groſſely imagine and maintaine, the reaſon is, becauſe theſe things that differ in time, can not bee ſaide in all reſpectes, yea, hardlye in anye reſpecte to bee the ſame.

3 Thirdly, wherfore it was ordained, to wit, to ſtrengthen our faith in the truth of Gods promiſes, by which wee may ſee, that wee are dull and • owe of hearte to beleeue (whatſoeuer the Pelagians & the pride of our owne minds would perſwade vs to the contrarie) GOD prouiding for the curing of this diſeaſe in vs,Luke 24 25. not onely his word preached, but viſible ſignes and ſeales alſo by which though the outward ſences may be ſatiſfied, the Lord yet notwithſtanding ſpeaketh to our ſoules and conſciences, the Lorde likewiſe inſtituting the ſame, as effectuall meanes to putte vs in remembraunce, by reaſon of our forgetfulneſſe of Ieſus Chriſt being abſent, as alſo of his death and paſſion, and of the fruites and profites wee reape thereby. Nowe a remembraunce of a thing it coulde not bee, if the thing it ſelfe were preſent. And all theſe three points are prooued out of 1. Corinth. 11.23.24.

In the ſecond place, the deepe and due conſideration of theſe three circumſtances folowing, will ſerue much for the cleering of this queſtion alſo, touching the Lords ſupper.

1 Firſt, which be the ſignes in the ſacrament, to wit, the viſible elements of bread and wine, which haue that ſtrength and force in them, not of themſelues, & in their owne nature, for then all bread and wine ſhould haue the like, neither yet becauſe they be vſed by men in the adminiſtration and participation of the ſupper, for if that were true, manie things then ſhould haue the like power and effect: but in reſpect of the Lords inſtitution, who in deed hath dedicated and appointed them to thoſe holie vſes, and who alone hath power to ordeine holie ſignes or ſacraments, and to giue them that effect & propertie, as hath beene plainelie declared before.

2 Secondlie, what be the things ſignified thereby, to wit, the bleſſed bodie of Chriſt crucified, and his pretious bloud, ſhed for the benefit and good of all thoſe, that by a liuelie and ſtedfaſt faith, doo apprehend and take hold of him, and all his merits: for no doubt but it was the Lords purpoſe, both in the elements and the vſe of the ſame, to direct our faith to theſe thinges in him, which in trueth were in him, and which (ſuch was his good pleaſure towardes vs miſerable wretches) ſhould be ſet out vnto vs in the ſacrament, otherwiſe the Lord Ieſus ſhould haue dallied with vs, and that in matters of no ſmall importance, from the which as we ſtedfaſtly beleeue, he was vtterly free, ſo the leaſt thought of ſuch a conceit and dotage, ſhould not ſo much as once enter into vs.

3 Thirdlie the analogie, proportion and agreement, which is betweene the ſignes, and the things ſignified, the Lord no doubt chooſing ſuch elementes as might moſt aptlie and fitlie expreſſe the things ſignified and ſealed by the ſame: for otherwiſe, if we had had bare ſignes alone, without holie things ſignified in and by the ſame, as our faith had no whit at all beene prouided for, becauſe it being ſpirituall and inward, is not, nor cannot be nouriſhed with outward and corporall thinges, ſo wee might eaſilie haue beene carried away into idolatrie or ſuperſtition at the leaſt, whileſt we directed our imagination (for I dare not call it faith) to viſible and externall elements, or doted in our fantaſie and vnderſtanding vppon creatures, which what hurt it might haue doone, though wee feele not by our owne experience (God be thanked therefore) yet wee may behold and ſee the ſame in the lamentable and pitifull ſpectacle of manie blind and ſuperſtitious ones in the world.

Now the analogie and proportion betweene the ſignes and the things ſignified in the Lords ſupper, may eaſilie be reduced and brought into three eſpeciall heads or points.

1 Firſt, that as verilie as that bread is broken before our bodily eies in the adminiſtration of the Lords ſupper, and the wine powred out, and diffuſed or ſpred abrode in the ſight of vs all, ſpeciallie whileſt that manie are made partakers of the ſame, ſo verile doo we or ought we by the eie of faith to behold Chriſt wounded for our tranſgreſsions, Iſaiah. 53.5. & broken for our iniquities, as Iſaiah ſaith, and his bleſſed body crucified, and his bloud ſhed vpon the croſſe for manie, Matth. 26.26, 27.28. 1. Cor. 11.24.25.26. for the remiſsion of ſinnes, the one being no more certeinelie performed in bodilie action and preſence of the people than the other, is trulie and faithfullie accompliſhed in ſpirit & truth.

2 Secondlie, that as bread hath this property, through Gods bleſſing giuen it, to feed and ſtrengthen our naturall bodies in this life?Pſal. 104.15. ſo his bodie being repreſented effectuallie vnto vs by that bread, and apprehended & applied vnto our ſelues by faith, hath the ſelfe ſame propertie touching our ſoules, to ſtrengthen and to nouriſh them ſpirituallie,Pſal. 104.15. Iudg. 9.13. euen to eternall life. And euen as the wine dooth comfort & make mans heart glad, as appeareth by ſundrie ſcriptures: ſo our full ioy and ſpirituall comfort, is to be found in none other but in him alone. And (to ioine theſe two togither, of which we haue ſpoken ſeuerallie) this we muſt know and beleeue further, that as our bodily diet is then ful whole and perfect, as it were, when it conſiſteth of theſe two things, to wit, bread and wine or drinke: ſo we are to know and beleeue, that the fulneſſe and perfection of all ſpirituall nouriſhment, is to be found in Chriſt alone, and no where elſe, whileſt that he is become, as well the drinke as the meat of our ſoule, not onelie in this double ſigne helping our infirmity, but alſo teaching vs to ſeeke the heauenly refection and nouriſhment of our ſoules, fullie and wholy in him, and no where els, whervnto alſo he himſelfe in ſome ſort alludeth. Matth. 11.28. Iohn. 6 35. Iohn. 7.37.38. and in other places of ſcripture.

3 Thirdlie, that euen as in our knowledge, the bread appointed for the Lords ſupper, is made of manie graines of corne, and the wine likewiſe it ſelfe of ſundrie and ſeuerall grapes, and yet all maketh but one bread, & one wine: ſo all the faithfull ſhould be inſtructed thereby, that how ſoeuer they be ſeuerall & diſtinct perſons one of them from another, euen as the ſeuerall members in mans bodie are, that yet they all compacted togither, make but one bodie in Chriſt, the onelie head thereof,Rom. 12.4.5. 1. Cor. 10.16.17. as the apoſtle plainlie prooueth in ſundrie places of his epiſtles, by which alſo they are admoniſhed to refer all that they doo to the glory of their head and capteine Chriſt, and to the mutuall comfort and ſuſtentation one of another.

Out of all that hitherto hath beene ſpoken or ſaid, I would pray the godlie and well affected reader, diligently to obſerue and note theſe three things following.

1 Firſt, that though it be moſt true, that euen by the miniſterie of the Goſpell preached, we haue Chriſt with all his benefits offered vnto vs, and doo by faith wrought in our harts, by the miniſterie of the ſame word, and working of his ſpirit, take hold of him & all his graces, of which alſo S. Paule ſpeaketh to the Galachians ſaieng,Galath. 3.1. that Chriſt was deſcribed in their ſight, and crucified amongſt them, that yet all this notwithſtanding, we haue him more plainelie and plentifullie ſet foorth vnto vs in the vſe of the ſupper, whileſt that we by faith feeding on him, that is the bread of life which came downe from heauen, Iohn. 6.51. are by that meanes become bone of his bones, Epheſ. 5.30. and fleſh of his fleſh, and after a ſort made one with him, Iohn. 17.21.22. euen as the father and he are one: which I ſpeake not to the debaſing of the word, as though the ſacraments were more woorthie and excellent, or to the diuiding of Chriſt, for as in reſpect of his ſubſtance, he is but one, both in the word and the ſacraments, but as in reſpect of vs, and for our weakeneſſe ſake, we hauing more of our ſences ſatiſfied in and by the vſe of the elements of the Lords ſupper, as for example, our ſight, our taſt, our feeling, yea and our hearing alſo, whileſt that in the deliuerie and partaking thereof, Chriſtes death is preached vnto vs, than we haue in the word which is directed onelie to the eare or hearing.

2 Secondlie, that this holie ſacrament dooth not onelie direct our faith to the death and paſſion of our ſauiour Chriſt, which was performed for vs and all the faithfull manie hundered yeeres agone, as the one, Hebr. 9.28. Hebr. 10.14. and the onelie ſacrifice for ſinne, neuer to be reiterated, becauſe that thereby he being the onelie high prieſt and eternall ſacrificer, hath conſecrated for euer all them that are ſanctified: but alſo, yea cheeflie, and eſpeciallie, to the gracious frutes and effectes that wee receiue thereby, as the forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, our reconciliation to GOD, the death of iniquitie in vs, the aſſured pledge of eternall life, and ſuch like: all which are liuelie ſet foorth and preached vnto vs in the ſame, to the ende that wee maye by faith in a ſtrong perſuaſion of Gods goodneſſe towards vs in Chriſt, be made partakers thereof. For otherwiſe, if we had but Chriſtes death onelie, and nothing elſe, it would be little auailable to vs: for what would it haue profited vs that he had died, if by his death he had not brought life and immortality to light? 2. Tim. 1.10. but for aſmuch as his death, and the effects and frutes following the ſame, and flowing from it, can not be ſundered, we therefore ſtedfaſtlie beleeue, that the faithfull are neuer partakers of the one alone, but that alſo they are partakers of the other likewiſe.

3 Thirdlie, that wee muſt certeinelie know, and ſtedfaſtlie beleeue that though this holie ſacrament doo ſpeciallie and cheeflie direct vs to Chriſt, his death, merits, obedience, and the frutes thereof, yet notwithſtanding alſo, it doth ſenſiblie and plainelie inſtruct vs in the ſpeciall duties of that ſound and ſincere loue, which in Chriſt, and for Chriſt, we as the members of that bodie, whereof he is the only head, Epheſ. 1.22. & 5.23. ought vnfeinedlie to carrie and accompliſh one of vs towardes another, not onelie as profitable and neceſſarie for the parties to whome ſuch dueties are performed, whileſt in the daies of their diſtreſſe we releeue them by our wealth, or comfort and councell them by our wit, which are things that God hath giuen vs euen to the ſame end, but comfortable alſo to our ſelues, whileſt by that as by a bage or cognizance we are knowne both to others and our ſelues to be Chriſtes diſciples in deed, Iohn. 13.35. and haue ſealed vp in our hearts the free pardon, and full forgiuenes of all our ſinnes,Luke. 7.47. Iohn. 3.14. and an aſſured pledge alſo, that we are tranſlated out of darkneſſe into light, without the which all we haue in this life, and therefore the ſacraments alſo could tend but to our greater condemnation.

In the third place, for the cleering of this controuerſie or queſtion of the Lords ſupper, we muſt haue a watchfull eie to Satans ſubtleties, who painfully laboureth in this point, as in all other pointes of Chriſtian religion alſo, by extremities to drawe vs into all corruption. Nowe the extremities that in time heeretofore haue burſt foorth, and are yet euen to this day, in manie places, ſtoutlie and ſtiflie mainteined, are eſpeciallie three.

1 The firſt is, that of the ſacramentaries, who hold and defend, that Chriſt in his ſupper hath left vs nothing ſaue the bare and naked ſignes of his death and paſſion. But the trueth is, that we are ſo farre off from allowing this conceit and opinion, whatſoeuer our aduerſaries babble and prate to the contrarie, that wee feare not openlie, and in the ſunne light to affirme, that beſides the ſignes themſelues, yea and euen togither with the ſignes, wee and all true chriſtians haue the thinges themſelues ſignified, not onelie truelie and effectuallie exhibited vnto vs, but giuen vs alſo, and beſtowed vpon vs, becauſe it is moſt certeine, that our Sauiour Chriſt,Iohn. 14.6. who is the trueth it ſelfe, and cannot lie, dooth in deede and aſſuredlie accompliſh vnto vs, all the promiſes which hee made vs, and meant to ſeale vnto vs, by the vſe of the ſignes in the ſacrament, that ſo we might become partakers euen of his verie ſubſtance, and grow vp alſo with him into one life and being. And though this cannot be comprehended by the eie of mans reaſon and vnderſtanding, no more than manie other things in our chriſtian religion, yet we cannot chooſe but know and confeſſe that this is ſenſiblie ſet foorth vnto vs in the vſe and participation of the ſupper, by ſeuerall meanes and inſtruments, ſome of them being outward, as the elements in the ſacrament, and ſome inward, as the ſpirituall grace repreſented thereby: for we are not angels, but men,Eccle. 12.7. conſiſting as the ſcripture teacheth vs, of bodie and ſoule: and therefore the Lord, by the vſe of his word and ſacraments, hath prouided for both parts, as the word for our eares,Rom. 10.17. and our eares for hearing of the ſame, that ſo faith might be wrought in our hearts, and the elements in the ſacrament for our taſt, ſight, feeling, &c: and yet our ſoules to be nouriſhed and fed, not with anie or all of theſe outward things (for how cā outward & corruptible things nouriſh inward & immortall ſubſtances?) but onelie with the ſpirituall graces, not onelie offered, but giuen alſo vnto vs therin: and this likewiſe to be wrought in vs (though our ſauiour be in heauen in reſpect of his bodie,Acts. 3.21. Pſalm. 39.12. & we heere as pilgrims & ſtrangers on the earth) by the wonderfull & vnſearchable working of his holie ſpirit in vs, and by the meanes of a liuelie & aſſured faith, both which being knit togither, doo eaſilie ioine togither thinges that be as farre aſunder, in reſpect of diſtance of place, as one end of the earth is from the other, and as farre aſunder, as heauen and earth themſelues are: or elſe how could we either beleeue the holie catholike church, and feele the communion of ſaints, ſeeing it commonlie falleth out, that the members of that holie fellowſhippe are ſundered one of them from another, in reſpect of great diſtance of place? or be aſſured that Chriſtes righteouſneſſe is become ours, ſeeing he is in the heauen, and wee on the earth, if by faith we did not take holde of the ſame, and applie it vnto our ſelues. Beſides, if men ſhould imbrace this ſacramentarie opinion, what were it but to euert, as the trueth of Chriſtes promiſes, ſo the certeinetie and aſſuredneſſe of his word, who in plaine termes calleth this holie ſacrament his bodie? Wherfore be it far from vs to approoue of anie ſuch dotage, as defaceth the trueth of the word, derogateth from Chriſte, and vtterlie deſtroieth our owne faith, than which what can be more horrible to heare, or fearefull to thinke.

2 The ſecond extremitie is that of conſubſtantiation, ſome affirming that there is deliuered to the people, & they receiue, togither with the ſubſtance of bread, the verie ſubſtance of Chriſtes verie naturall bodie, ſo that there is (as it were) an intermingling or mixture of both the ſubſtances, in the action of the ſupper. But this opinion is iuſtlie to be diſliked and reprooued, not onelie becauſe of the abſurdities which it hath common, with the hereſie of tranſubſtantiation (whereof we will ſpeake in the next place) but alſo becauſe it is quite and cleane contrarie to common ſence & reaſon, confounding and iumbling togither two ſeuerall & diſtinct ſubſtances, and making the leſſe, to wit, the ſubſtance of the bread, to comprehend the greater, that is, Chriſtes humane bodie, yea euen his verie Godhead, heauen and earth is not able to conteine. Beſides it dooth vtterlie take away an eſſentiall propertie of Chriſtes bodie,Iſaiah. 66.1. Acts. 7.49.17.21. for if Chriſt in reſpect of his humanitie, be like vnto vs in all things, ſinne onelie excepted, Hebr. 4.15. and we know by the light of reaſon & vnderſtanding, that God hath beſtowed vpon vs, yea by verie experience, that our bodies are circumſcriptible, and tied to a place, it muſt needs follow, that Chriſt in reſpect of his manhood, or Chriſt as he is man, is and muſt be tied to a place, and not be in euery place, as he muſt needs be, if theſe mens aſſertions be true, which is nothing els in deed, but vtterlie to deſtroy Chriſts body, which alſo I prooue againſt them thus: Whoſoeuer taketh away the eſſentiall propertie of anie thing, taketh away alſo the verie thing it ſelfe. This propoſition is prooued by this marime in logike: If the definition of a thing, which cheeflie conſiſteth of the eſſentiall propertie of the thing, be taken away, then the thing it ſelfe alſo defined falleth away? as for example: If reaſonable liuing creature, which is the definition of a man be taken away, what ſhall become of man? or where ſhall he appeare, which is the thing defined? whereof alſo there is good reaſon, becauſe the eſſentiall propertie is it that conſtituteth or maketh the thing. Hitherto the maior propoſition, as we ſay in ſchooles, with the proofs thereof. Now foloweth the minor or ſecond propoſition: But theſe men take away the eſſentiall propertie of a thing, to wit, of a bodie which is to be circumſcriptible or tied to a place, which is in deed an eſſentiall propertie of the bodie of man, and therefore of Chriſtes bodie as hee is man, whileſt they will haue him, as he is man, in ſundrie places at one time. If anie man will denie this, it may eaſilie be prooued both by their owne writinges in ſundrie places, and alſo by the definition of a bodie, which is a quantitie that may be diuided according to the threefold meaſuring receiued amongeſt men, that is, length, breadth, and thickeneſſe, and likewiſe by the deſcription of a place, which is defined to be a nighneſſe or touching of the thing conteining and the thing conteined. The concluſion therfore is, that in taking away place from the bodie of Chriſt (which they doo, whileſt they place it in euerie place, whereas in the nature thereof, it can be but in one place at one time) they doo vtterlie deſtroie the bodie or humanitie of Chriſt, or at the leaſt confound it ſo with the Godhead, as Eutyches did, that they make a confuſion (whereas in all trueth and vprightneſſe, there ſhoulde remaine a diſtinction of the proprieties of either nature in his bleſſed perſon. But of this inough in this place, becauſe it is ſomewhat philoſophicall, and becauſe alſo in the next ſection we ſhall haue occaſion to deale with the like.

3 The third extremitie, is that of tranſubſtantiation, mainteined altogither by the Romiſh catholiks, as they will be called, who hold that the bread and wine (the ſubſtance thereof vaniſhing away, and nothing being left but the accidents or qualities thereof, as in the bread, roundneſſe, whiteneſſe, &c: and in the wine redneſſe, moiſture, &c:) are changed, and that by the power of certeine words ſpoken by the preeſt (as they name him) ouer the elements, they are turned into the verie naturall bodie and bloud of our ſauior. Concerning this point and the branches therof, I minde to ſpeake, both more particularlie, and more fullie, becauſe it is one of the popiſh opinions, that greatlie at this preſent troubleth the chriſtian world, and namelie our flouriſhing iſle of England, and alſo becauſe in the daies of perſecution heeretofore, both within this land and elſwhere, it hath beene the common knife that the wicked haue vſed, to cut the throtes of the godlie withall, & as it were the hatchet to chop off their heads. It may be, that in this my poore trauel ſome may be conuerted, from falſhood to truth, and ſo be ſaued in the day of Chriſt: or, if that gratious effect followe not in the aduerſaries, yet I hope the friendes and louers of truth, ſhall by this meanes be ſomwhat ſtaied, that they be not caried away with certaine inticing and inchaunting wordes, in the mouths of ſome ſeducing ſpirites, whom Antichriſt Satans eldeſt ſonne hath thruſt into the worlde, to peruert men from the truth and obedience of God.

1 Firſt, for the name of Tranſubſtantiation, I feare not to affirme, that it is verye newe and neuer heard of, before the days of pope Innocent the third, who was about the yeare of our Lorde, 1205, much leſſe was it confirmed as an article of faith, before the Councell of Laterane, which was kept and holden in his dayes. And though wee might by authoritie of good hiſtoriographers, make it yet ſomewhat more new, namely, that it was not ratified as an article of religion, till the Councell kept at Conſtance, a citie ſo named in Germanie, in the dayes of Pope Iohn the 23, which was about the yere of our Lord,Garan. in ſinu. Concilio Harding in confut. Apolog. 1415. Yet to gratifie them, wee wil grant it, to be as old, as the councel of Lateran in Rome, held in the yere 1215, thā the which alſo their own writers will not preſcribe further. But alas what get they hereby, namely, that this their dotage and dreame of tranſubſtantiation, at the leaſt, in the name of it, hath not ſo manie gray haires on the head, or yeares on the backe of it, as they would beare the world in hand it hath, for, as by computation it may appeare, it is but 300 & do yeres old. Neither wil that ſhift ſerue, that they flee to here, to wit, that though the terme were not till then, yet the matter was before. A verie likelie thing forſooth, as though the fathers of the Greeke and Latin churches, ſo well ſkilled in thoſe ſeuerall languages, had not bin able aſwel to haue deliuered the word as the matter. In points of greater conſequence than this by farre, they hadde their peculiar and ſignificant words, as trinitie, harmonouſly, hypoſtaſis, and ſuch like, and yet in this they muſt faile forſooth, to the end, that the glorie of new inuention or forgerie rather may bee aſcribed to ſome other. But to conclude • his point: If papiſts vnder a falſe cloke of • oueltie, will not ſpare to reiect, not onely olde, but good and true things alſo, then much more may we, and that vppon good ground refuſe this fantaſie, not onelie becauſe it is new, but alſo bicauſe it is falſe, as ſhal (god willing) hereafter more fullie appeare.

2 Howbeit, that there is a chaunge, no man of ſound iudgement, I thinke, dooth, or will denie, but that is not in reſpect of the nature of the thinges themſelues: for the elements of bread and wine remaine in their owne proper & peculiar ſubſtance, wherof not only al men may be ſufficient witneſſes, but almoſt all the ſenſes of euery man, as ſight, taſte, feeling, &c: but this mutation is made in regarde of the vſe and ende wherevnto they are applied, becauſe that they are by the Lordes owne inſtitution and appointment, ſeparated from the common vſe, yea, & as it were frō common bread and wine, and applied, not onlie to a holy vſe, whileſt they are vſed in holie aſſemblies, wyth ſanctified and religious mindes, but dedicated alſo to holie endes, that is to ſaye, to ratifie and confirme our Faith in the trueth of Gods promiſes, and to be ſure ſeales and pledges to our conſciences, of holy things, to wit, of chriſts body and bloud, and of the effects and fruits, that by his death & paſſion wee receiue. But that this chaunge ſhoulde be wrought, by any words, as they ſay, of conſecration, I am ſo farre off from allowing it as true, that I am verily perſuaded, that they ſpeake they knowe not what, becauſe it is not yet reſolued, not onely amongſt the doctors of their ſide, as Beſſarian, Biel, Bonauenture, Catharin, Durand, Scotus, and others, which be the words of cōſecratiō, or with which words Chriſt, and the prieſt by his example, maketh the bread Chriſts body, but becauſe a pope himſelfe (who hath the fulnes of all knowledge in his breaſt, and cannot erre, if all bee true that they affirme) I meane Pope Innocent the third,Innocent. de ſa • r. altar. myſter. lib. 4. cap. 6. a great fauourer and furtherer of ſuch fantaſies, coulde not well tell how to reſolue it, as appeareth by his writings. Yea, in aſcribing mutation and change of things, to a forme of wordes vttered by the mouth of a mortall man, they blaſphemouſſy robbe God of that glorie which is due vnto him alone:Pſalm. 148.5. For to him onelie it belongeth to ſpeake the woorde, and to haue thinges made, and giue it to an other, to whom it at no hand appertaineth. And if words be ſo ſtrong in the one Sacrament, as to turne bread into Chriſtes body, and wine into his bloud, what reaſon is there, that the wordes of inſtitution, vttered by the ſame perſon, I meane the prieſt, with intent alſo to conſecrat, it ſhold not alter the element of water in the other ſacrament, to wit, of Baptiſme, and be ſo ſtrong and powerfull, as to make the ſame, the very true and naturall bloud of our Sauiour Chriſt? But let them ſay what they will. For mine owne parte, I reſt reſolute in this, that this aſſertion, and their whole action in conſecration ſauoureth verye ſtronglie of a magicall incantation, and I am ſo muche the more confirmed in this, becauſe the Papiſtes reioycing, as inchaunters and ſorcerers doo, in theyr odde numbers, haue added one woorde, that is to ſaye (enim) which is not in the Greeke or Latine textes,Miſſali Roman ex decreto concil. Trident. reſtitutum, & Pij. quinti iuſſu editum, pa. 23. col. • to the wordes of inſtitution, ſayeng: Hoc eſt enim corpus meum, as may appeare in their miſfall or maſſe booke, and that not their old ones onelie, but in one newlie furbiſhed, by the decree of the councel of Trent, and publiſhed abroad to beholde the light, like an vntimelie birth, by the authoritie and commandement of Pope Pius the fift.

3 And as the noueltie of this fained fantaſie of tranſubſtantiation, is a brand good enough, to worke the diſcredit thereof, euen as though it had beene bored thorow the eare, or worne a paper for forgerie and deceit, ſo the groſſe and palpable abſurdities which follow the ſame opinion, are ſufficient, and ſtrong enough of themſelues, to make it out of credit with all perſons, indued with holie wiſedome and right vnderſtanding, and to cauſe thē to eſteeme of it, not onely as a thing falſe and eronious, but very vngodlie and blaſphemous alſo. To reckon vp all, or largelie to diſcourſe vppon the particulars, neither is it my purpoſe, neither is it almoſt poſſible, ſo fertile a ſoile, is this point in falſhoode, and yet I minde to touch ſome, and that in ſuche ſorte alſo, as the vanitie and falſhoode of this greate corruption, may thereby eaſilie appeare, to all ſuche as will not be wilfully blinded, or ſtoppe their eies and eares, at the brightnes and ſound of truth. At the leaſt, my hope and perſuaſion is, that though I preuaile not either with the malicious blinde, or ſimple ignorant, yet I ſhall confirme and ſtrengthen my brethren, who together with me, as in many other pointes of our chriſtian religion, ſo in this, haue embraced the truth of God to our cōforts.

1 Firſt, I ſaye, that this aſſertion of Tranſubſtantiation, or reall preſence of Chriſtes naturall bodie, dooth vtterlie ouerthrowe and deſtroy the nature of a ſacrament, which, as all men knowe and confeſſe, muſt euer conſiſt of two partes, to wit, of viſible elements, and inuiſible graces: the trueth whereof appeareth not onely by the generall conſent of all men, as before is alleadged, but alſo by the particular viewe of all the Sacramentes mentioned in the olde or newe teſtament. But this trueth is not onely defaced, and laid euen wyth the ground, but ſwalowed vp alſo, and, as it were, broght to nothing, if ſo be it, that the nature and ſubſtance of the elements, bee either chaunged, or vaniſh awaie, in this matter of the lords ſupper, as ſome affirme and hold, & the things repreſented by ye ſame come in their place. The reaſon wherof is plaine and euident, to witte, that the one parte of the Sacrament, namely, the viſible ſigne, is then and there abſent. And therefore it muſt of neceſſitie followe, that not onelie the nature of a Sacrament is deſtroyed, but by conſequent alſo the Sacrament it ſelf, becauſe the nature of a thing being taken away, the thing it ſelfe can not ſtand or continue, for the nature is it, whereof the thing it ſelfe conſiſteth. Yea this alſo falleth out vpon it, that thoſe men that in the pride and vanitie of their owne hearts inlarge the number of Sacraments, aboue them that chriſt hath left vnto his church, publiſhing to the worlde, that there are ſeauen, where indeede there are but two. In the true and naturall vſe of the worde Sacrament, are founde, not onelie to bee clippers of the Lordes coine, but vtter defacers of his holie ordinaunce, in taking from the Churche (whatſoeuer they pretend to the contrarie) one of thoſe that Chriſt hath left to the ſame, for the comforte thereof: beeing founde likewiſe by this meanes, not onelie preſumptuous againſt Chriſt, but iniurious alſo to the people, in ſpoiling them of ſo great conſolation. So fruitfull in vngodlineſſe is the euill weede of corrupt doctrine. Indeede if the ſigne of the ſacrament, and the thing ſignified by the ſame, were thinges contrary, they might haue ſome ſhew of reaſon, for this vnmeaſurable affection, but foraſmuch as wee all knowe them to be, not things contrary, but diuers, no doubt, but they not onely may, but do very well ſtand together, the one of them beeing ſo farre, from deſtroying or defacing of an other, that they in a moſt louing conſent agree and concurre together to the ſetting foorth of Gods glorie, and the ſpirituall good and comforte of hys children. Wherefore, I ſaye, it cannot be auoided, but that they doe very ill, that do thus malapertlie diſioyne and put in ſunder ſuch things, as God hath moſt wiſelie ioyned and glewed as it were faſt together.

2 Secondlie, I affirme, that this doctrine is woonderfullie iniurious vnto the glorified bodie of our Sauiour, not onely whileſt it fetcheth him from heauen the place of all ſuch bleſſedneſſe, as can not be conceiued, much leſſe ſpoken of, into the earth, the place of all vnſpeakeable miſeſerie and wretchedneſſe, which yet is not all, this circumſtaunce further aggrauating the error of this vniuſt aſſertion, that they make the bleſſed body of Chriſt, our Lord and god, ſubiect to the call of a mortall and miſerable creature (the prieſt I meane, as they name him) as though if he bade go, it ſhould go, or if he commaunded it to come, it ſhoulde come, &c: But alſo whileſt it maketh it, to be rent and torne in peeces, not only with the teeth of good mē, a matter which our nature abhorreth, both in reſpect of ye rawnes of it, & alſo in reſpect of the ſubſtāce of it, for we are not Anthropophagi, that is, eaters of mans fleſh, but euen with the teeth of the wicked and vngodlie alſo, which euen for this cauſe, if there were no more, is moſt vntrue and falſe, becauſe that then they ſhold liue for euer,Iohn 6.54. in as muche as all that eate his fleſhe and drincke his bloude, haue this promiſe, that they haue eternall life. And yet theſe wicked menne ceaſe not heere, but proceede to further impietie, ſome of the chiefeſt among them affirming (though in deede others are not ſo reſolute in it, by whyche alſo wee may ſee, that there is not ſo muche vnitie or conſent amongeſt Popiſhe diuines and doctors, as they pretend) that mice, rattes, dogges, hogges, and other vnreaſonable creatures, falling vpon conſecrated hoſtes, and deuouring the ſame doo vndoubtedlie eate the bleſſed bodie of our Sauiour. And if they ſtaied heere, their ſinne were ſomewhat leſſe, but this is not all the miſchiefe that falleth out in this behalfe: for whereas in trueth and chriſtian religion, the bodie of our Sauiour Chriſt is now immortall, and in immortall glorie, as Gods worde, and the articles of our Beleefe agreeing wyth the ſame doo plainelye teache vs, theſe menne ſubiect it to putrefaction, corruption, and wormes, by reaſon of the long reſeruation thereof, and at the laſt, to conſuming in the fire (a fact of moſt horrible crueltie, if it were Chriſtes fleſh, but no maruaile though they deale ſo wyth him, when they handle hys Saints as hardelie as that commeth vnto, which thing experience of all ages dooth ſufficientlye prooue) becauſe it maye not otherwiſe bee made awaye (as they themſelues confeſſe) if it be once taken wyth hoarineſſe, mouldines, or ſuch like. If any man doubt of the truth and certaintie of theſe points obiected againſt them, lette hym but reade their owne workes, and hee ſhall ſee the matter ſufficientlie cleared. Yea, I ſuppoſe, that the verye aduerſaries themſelues will not growe ſo ſhameleſſe, as to denie that which with a full mouth, and in the open Sunne light, hath beene publiſhed by the beſt of their ſide. And if they woulde or ſhoulde, yet wee haue the liues, and the leaues, the wordes and the workes, in ſentence and ſenſe, for manner and matter to charge them wythall, and to throwe this dung into their faces.

3 Thirdly, I ſay, that by conſequent it dooth moſt curſedly confounde (if not vtterlie ſubuert and ouerthrowe) the humanitie of our Sauiour, with his Godhead, whileſt that which indeede and all trueth, is proper and peculiar to the eternall Deitie onely: for example, to be euerie where, which can not agree to anie but to GOD alone, as both reaſon and religion will ſufficiently perſwade, if wee will giue eare vnto the ſame, is yet notwythſtanding, moſt blaſphemouſlye attributed and aſcribed to his manhoode, which (as hath beene already ſhewed before) and ſhall more plainelie, if GOD will, be prooued heereafter, is, and muſt of neceſſitie, ſince the time of his moſte glorious aſcenſion into Heauen, and ſitting at the right hande of the maieſtie of GOD his Father, the very onelie ſeate and throne, as it were, of his bodilie reſidence, bee circumſcriptible and tied to a place. As for that which they are woont vſuallie to obiect, for the impeachement of this trueth, and the eſtabliſhement of their owne errour, beeing taken from the glorification of our Sauiours bodie, is eaſily beaten backe and aunſweared, as which indeede, if it bee well weighed, is not onelie vntrue, as in reſpect of it ſelfe: becauſe, though glorification implie a moſt excellent and heauenlie eſtate, dooth not yet for all that deſtroye the eſſentiall properties of bodies glorified, but moſt abſurde and falſe alſo, as in regard of vs. For if the glorification of Chriſts bodie, haue remooued or taken awaye that eſſentiall propertie, to witte, that it ſhoulde truelie, and indeede, bee tied vnto a place, then the like ſhall bee perfourmed, and the ſame effect followe, in all the glorified bodies of the faithfull after the reſurrection, becauſe our Sauiour hath not onelie glorified his owne bodie for himſelfe, hee riſing therein a mightie conquerour ouer death and hell, and nowe triumphantlie ruling and raigning in the heauens in all maieſtie, but for our ſakes alſo hath atchieued that greate honour, wee hauing from him this aſſured promiſe in his worde,Philip. 3.21. that God ſhal chaunge our baſe and vile bodies, that they may bee faſhioned like vnto his glorious bodie, according vnto the mightie working, whereby hee is able to ſubdue all things vnto himſelfe. But to ſaye, that our bodies glorified after the riſing againe of the ſame in the generall day of iudgement ſhall be euery where, a raſhe and vncertaine, yea, a beaſtlie and blaſphemous aſſertion, becauſe it aſcribeth that vnto vs, which is proper and peculiar onelie to GOD: for vnto hym alone it perteineth to fill, heauen, earth, and all places, alwayes, and at one tyme, as infinite places of Scripture doo plainelie prooue, therefore this opinion alſo, concerning Chriſtes glorified bodie, beeing euerie where, or in infinite places at one time, muſt of neceſſitie be ſuche likewiſe.

4 Fourthlie, it dooth directlye deſtroy, and, as it were, at one blowe blotte out, and deface, all thoſe Articles of our moſte pretious Faith, and Chriſtian religion, whych doo concerne Chriſtes aſſured aſcenſion into Heauen, hys maieſticall ſitting at the right hande of the Father, and his glorious comming agayne from thence, together wyth that infinite number of moſte playne places of GODS holie woorde, that out of the writinges of the Prophetes and Apoſtles, may bee drawen for the proofe of thoſe moſte comfortable and neceſſarie pointes. To deale wyth euerye one of theſe by themſelues ſhortely, and in fewe woordes: I woulde faine knowe if our Sauiour Chriſt be here vpon earth, in reſpect of his bodilye power and preſence, howe hee can iuſtlie, as in regarde of the ſame hys bodye, bee ſayde to haue aſcended into Heauen? Or let them tel vs, if hee remaine wyth vs in hys fleſh, how hee can bee truelye ſaide in hys manhoode, to ſitte at the right hande of hys Father in Heauen? Or howe it can bee in religion or reaſon affirmed, that our Sauiour ſhall come from Heauen, with great power and glorie to iudge the quick and the dead, ſeeing he is here on earth already. The Scripture telleth vs for his aſcenſion,Actes 1.9. that in the ſight and beholding of the bleſſed Apoſtles, yea whiles they looked ſtedfaſtly towards heauen, he was taken vp. Let them ſhew ſo much for his bodilie abode vpon earth, and proue it by ſuch ſubſtantiall witneſſe, and wee are readie to yeelde. Beſides, we knowe by the worde, and therefore beleeue it, that as he was ſeene go into heauen, Actes 1.10. ſo ſhall he come againe: but hee was ſeene to aſcend thither bodilie, and therefore ſo ſhall hee returne from thence againe. I ſuppoſe they will not ſaye, that our Sauiour had two bodies, one that hee tooke wyth him, an other that hee left heere, for that were to make him altogether monſtrous, and men ſcrupulous, none knowing in whether of them hee perfourmed the work of their redemption. And to ſaye that that one bleſſed bodie of his was diuided, is as abſurde and erronious, becauſe it can not be ſo, but that the whole bodie it ſelfe muſt be impaired and mangled, at the leaſt, if not deſtroyed and ſo the woorke of ſaluation ouerthrowne. To ſtand vpon anie naked interpretation touching the right hand of God, will not ſerue their turne: for there being nothing meant thereby in this article of our beleefe, but the great glorie that is in heauen prepared for the ſaints, and that moſt excellent bleſſedneſſe that belongeth to them, whereof our ſauior Chriſt was in a moſt full meaſure made by his aſcention into heauen, as in reſpect of his humanity abſolute partaker, what could they gaine▪ Doo they imagine that it would heervpon inſue, that Chriſt ſhould be euerie where, and by conſequent on earth? but they are deceiued: for why doo they not as well conſider the word ſitting, which implieth locall reſidence in a place? or doo they not know and beleeue that heauen it ſelfe is not euerie where, but locall rather? or will they not ſee, that without warrant of the word (yea contrarie to the ſame, which in ſundrie places oppoſeth heauen and earth one of them againſt another) or ſence of humane iudgement, they iumble and confound them togither? Reaſon will lead vs to this, that none can be ſaid to goe vp into the place where he is, or to come downe from it, when he remaineth there. And though wee minde not to ſubiect our ſauior, ſpeciallie as in reſpect of his eternall Godhead to humane ſence, yet by the ſame we may and ought to be ledde, not to deſtroy the eſſentiall properties of his manhood. Now then, whether ſhall wee beleeue this trueth of the Lord, or mens fantaſies that go about to peruert our perſuaſions, and deceiue our vnderſtandings? Let men of the worlde deeme what they luſt, this is the truth that God hath ſanctified vnto vs in his word, and I doo ſtedfaſtlie beleeue it in my heart, and will throgh Gods goodneſſe and ſtrength alwaies, confeſſe the ſame with my mouth, that from the very time of Chriſtes aſcenſion into Heauen,Acts. 3.2 • . The Heauens muſt conteine his naturall bodie vntill the time that all things be reſtored, that is euen to the worlds end.

5 Fiftlie, I ſay that this opinion dooth vniuſtlie depriue vs of all ſuch ſpirituall graces and comforts for our conſciences, as God the father in his ſonne Chriſt, by ſending the Holie ghoſt the third perſon in the deitie, hath not onelie promiſed, but in good time wil performe and beſtow vpon the whole church generallie and euerie ſound particular member of the ſame: yea if we wey it well we ſhall finde, that it is the ruine and bane of the church it ſelfe, both in the whole bodie of it, and in the ſeuerall parts. Our ſauior himſelfe in moſt plaine and expreſſe terms faith:Iohn. 16.7. I tel you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the comforter will not come vnto you, but if I depart I will ſend him vnto you. Hee that knoweth anie thing of truth, is well acquainted with this, that generallie all the word, but moſt eſpeciallie the comfortable promiſes conteined in the ſame, be as it were, the life and ſoule of the church it ſelfe. The veritie and certeintie wherof, though it lie in Chriſt,1. Cor. 1.20. becauſe in him al Gods promiſes are yea and amen, yet the particular applications of the ſame, to our owne harts, muſt come from the powerfull working of the holie ſpirit. But how ſhall we come to the effectuall feeling of theſe, if the force of the ſpirit be not ſhed abrode into our hearts? or how can the holie ſpirit be called the pledge of Gods promiſes, Epheſ. 1.13. and the earneſt penie of our adoption and ſaluation, if that promiſe of our ſauior Chriſt be not accompliſhed? or how can we find comfort againſt the feare of death? or peace in our conſciences againſt the ſight of ſinne, and iudgement due vnto vs for the ſame without this? Of a truth, the remembrance of our diſſolution, and departure henſe (this being remooued) ſhall be greeuous, and the horrour of hell, the iuſt puniſhment of our iniquitie will be readie euery houre to ouerwhelme vs. Wee need not ſtand long vpon this point: either this muſt be true, that wee haue the Holie ghoſt, in moſt abundant meaſure, by the bodilie abſence of our ſauior Chriſt, giuen to the church, as before is ſaid and proued, and ſo a ſpirituall ſupplie beſtowed vpon vs for a bodiely want, that being more excellent than this, becauſe the apoſtle ſaith, that henſefoorth we know no man after the fleſh, 2. Corinth. 5.16. yea though we had knowne Chriſt after the fleſh, yet now henſeforth know we him no more: or elſe if Chriſt be heere bodilie preſent, the Holy ghoſt is not yet come, nor the apoſtles indued with miraculous graces, nor the fulneſſe of the Gentils gathered in, nor the comfort and peace of the church prouided for: all which are fearefull to thinke vpon, but much more horrible to feele, and in deed are quite & cleane contrarie to the truth of the word: and if we had no more but onlie the ſecond chapter of the Acts of the apoſtles, it were ſufficient to ouerthrow the ſame.

6 Sixtlie, this aſſertion dooth not onelie cloſelie, but openlie accuſe Chriſt himſelfe of manifeſt lieng & vntrueth, who as both the prophets and apoſtles doo beare witneſſe, did no ſinne, Iſaiah. 53.9. 1. Peter. 2.22. neither was there any guile found in his mouth. He himſelfe hath plainlie told vs: The poore ye haue alwaies with you, Marke. 14.7. and when yee will ye may doo them good, but me yee ſhall not haue alwaies. And againe elſwhere:Iohn. 14.2. I go to prepare a place for you. If this be not blaſphemie, to doo what we can to taint him with falſhood, that is both truth it ſelfe, and the author of all truth, I know not what is blaſphemie. And yet this iniquitie ſtaieth not heere, for it depriueth vs firſt of the comfort of the forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, becauſe if our ſauiour haue beene tainted with anie manner of, iniquitie though neuer ſo ſmall, he cannot be a price and ranſome for ſin, becauſe he that muſt recommit ſinners to God, muſt of neceſſitie be free from tranſgreſſion. Secondlie, it dooth (as it were) violentlie take and pull from vs, the hope that we haue of the heauenlie inheritance. For why hath our ſauior Chriſt ſundred himſelfe for a ſpace from vs, as in reſpect of his bodilie preſence, not yet leauing vs comfortleſſe (for he hath giuen vs his ſpirit to ſupplie (as it were) his abſence) but to the end that we might heereafter in time to come moſt comfortablie enioye him, bothe in bodie and ſoule for euermore? Dooth not hee himſelfe ſay:Iohn. 16.16. Yet a little while and yee ſhall not ſee me: and againe, a little while and ye ſhall ſee me, for I go to my father? And in another place: Though I go to prepare a place for you, Iohn. 14, 3. yet will I come againe, and receiue you vnto my ſelfe, that where I am there may yee be alſo. And yet all this notwithſtanding, ſuperſtitious and braineſicke people, dare with open mouth affirme, that we haue him continuallie with vs here vpon earth, and that not in reſpect of his ſpirituall power and preſence onelie, wherevnto we our ſelues moſt gladlie yeeld (as a verie principall comfort vnto vs, in the daies of all our diſtreſſes) becauſe in that reſpect, as God eternall with his father, we beleeue that he filleth all places, both in heauen and in earth, and is ſaid to be with the beleeuers euen vnto the end of the world, Matth. • 3.20. but as in reſpect of his corporall and bodilie preſence alſo, than the which nothing vndoubtedlie can be more falſe and abſurd, as hath beene ſufficientlie ſhewed alreadie, and plainelie prooued before.

Now hauing waded thus farre in the trueth and certeinetie of the matter it ſelfe, wee might ſafelie ſhut vp and conclude this point, but that there remaine ſundrie of the aduerſaries obiections to be anſwered: wherin I cannot but let the godlie reader vnderſtand, that I minde not to anſwer either all of them, or manie of them, becauſe the moſt in trueth be friuolous and vaine, and it would be ouer tedious to wade into ſuch idle and vnprofitable matter. Three there are in deede, which becauſe they ſeeme to be of ſpeciall ſtrength and ordinarie vſe, I can not let paſſe. Two of them are taken from the words of the text of holie ſcripture, and the third from the omnipotencie and almightie power of our ſauiour Chriſt: which though they be common things in deed, and ſuch as might as eaſilie be reiected as obiected, becauſe the controuerſie is not touching the plaine wordes of the text, and the almightie power of Chriſt, as God (for be it far from vs to be ſo abſurd, as to draw things of ſuch euidency and excellencie into queſtion, but we ſtriue rather, as for the true ſence & naturall meaning of the wordes, ſo for the veritie of Chriſtes perſon, and the eſſentiall properties of either his diſtincted natures) yet we cannot, but both for the ſtrengthening of them that be weake and ignorant in the ſame, as alſo for the diſcharge of our conſcience before God and man, but in a word or two, as it were, make a ſhort, but withal a ſound, ſufficient, and true anſwer I hope, to euery one of theſe three ſeuerallie, and by themſelues.

1 The firſt place obiected is theſe words of our ſauiour, in the goſpell after Iohn: Except ye eat the fleſh of the ſonne of man, Iohn. 6.13. and drinke his bloud, ye haue no life in you. Weerevnto I anſwer: firſt that neither theſe words. neither the reſt of the chapter, can in anie probabilitie or ſhew of reaſon, properlie be vnderſtood of the Lords ſupper. And if we had no more for it but this, yet were this ſufficient, becauſe at that time, the ſupper it ſelfe was not inſtituted and ordeined, but a long while after, as in the euangeliſts writings dooth plainelie appeare: but muſt rather be referred to our ſpirituall communicating or partaking with Chriſt, by the meanes of a liuelie and ſtedfaſt faith, apprehending the word generallie, and applieng particularlie vnto our ſelues, all the gracious and ſweet promiſes that the Lord hath made and offered vnto vs therein, which may plainelie appeare to be moſt true, partlie becauſe he perſiſteth by a continuall thread of ſpeech (as it were) in the metaphor of bread or meat, mentioned before verſ. 26.27. vſing alſo for that purpoſe, as euerie man may eaſilie perceiue, ſundrie borrowed ſpeeches, agreeing well to the circumſtance of the matter wherein he was to deale, which he would not, or needed not to haue doone, if he had meane ſo groſlie or carnallie, as theſe men fantaſie: and partlie becauſe he ſpeaketh ſo often, not of eating onelie, but alſo of beleeuing, as verſe. 35.40. which can not be properlie attributed to anie outward or materiall thing, ſuch as the bodie and fleſh of Chriſt then was and is, but to inward and ſpirituall matters, which as it may be gathered by ſundrie places of holie ſcripture,Rom. 8.24. the apoſtle affirming, that hope that is ſeene is no hope: for how can a man hope for that which hee ſeeth? 2. Cor. 5.7. and that we walke by faith, and not by ſight, Hebr. 11.1. yea and that faith it ſelfe is the ground of things which are hoped for, and the euidence of thinges which are not ſeene: ſo alſo may it be prooued euen by the verie nature of faith, which being a ſpirituall and inward qualitie giuen vs of God, Philip. 1.29. Iohn. 4.24. who is nothing elſe but ſpirit & trueth, and wrought in vs by ſpirituall meanes, as the word & ſacraments outwardlie, and the Holie ghoſt inwardly in our hearts, muſt alſo of neceſſitie be directed to ſpirituall & inward things. But let vs for reaſoning ſake grant that the place were to be vnderſtood of the holie ſupper, yet doth it not for all that eſtabliſh anie groſſe and carnall eating of the naturall fleſh or bodie of our ſauiour Chriſt, becauſe if that were ſo, then had not our ſauiour ſufficientlie anſwered the Capernatts or Iewes of Capernaum, who vainelie dreaming and doting of ſuch a groſſe and carnall manducation or eating,Iohn 6.52. ſaid: How can this man giue vs his fleſh? meaning thereby that it was altogither impoſſible and vnnaturall, both in reſpect of himſelfe, and in regard of them alſo, becauſe it was ſeldome or neuer heard of except it were amongſt the Anthropophagi, that men did willinglie giue their fleſh to be food vnto others, or that others did eat the ſame, but had rather yeelded vnto them in that their conceipt, which beſides that it conteineth an errour in religion and nature, as before hath beene ſhewed, is quite and cleane contrarie to the purpoſe of Chriſt in that place, and cloſelie accuſeth him, as though either in ignorance he could not, or in an euill minde he would not haue inſtructed them in their blindneſſe, all which are horrible to heare, blaſphemous to ſpeake, and beaſtlie to thinke. Beſides, if that corrupt ſence ſhould be allowed, marke what a Sea of abſurdities woulde inſue therevpon. As firſt in what a miſerable eſtate ſhoulde wee leaue the holie Fathers of the olde couenaunts, who were longe before the time of Chriſtes taking our fleſh vpon him, & therefore could not eat it, and ſo by conſequent could not be ſaued.Matth. 8.11. And yet our ſauiour in plaine termes affirmeth, that they were in the kingdome of heauen. And S. Paule alſo ſaith,1. Cor. 20.3.4. that they did all eat the ſame ſpirituall meat that wee doo, and did all drinke the ſame ſpirituall drinke that we doo: which word ſpirituall would be marked as directlie oppoſite to groſſe, carnall, or bodilie eating, plainelie alſo proouing that betwixt their ſacraments and ours there was no difference at all, as in reſpect of ſubſtance and effect, ſauing only that theirs were in time before ours, euen as they themſelues alſo were, and inſtituted in other outward elements than ours. Secondlie in what a miſerable caſe & condition ſhould we put poore infants, ſpeciallie of the beleeuers, if they ſhould be taken away by death before that cōming to the yeers of diſcretion, they could communicat or partake in that holie ſacrament. One of theſe two groſſe abſurdities muſt needs follow therevpon, yea & be granted alſo, vnleſſe men wilbe ſtifnecked in error, to wit, either that infants muſt haue the holie communion miniſtred vnto them, which thing in deed Auguſtine did once fantaſticallie imagine, as appeareth by manie places of his works, notwithſtanding all that papiſts ſay to cleere him therof. But S. Paule is flatlie againſt it, who will haue none admitted thereto,1. Corinth. 11.28. 2. Corinth. 13. but ſuch as can examine & trie themſelues, whether they be in the faith or no, which infants cannot doo, as all men may plainlie perceiue, not onlie becauſe they want reaſon, as in the practiſe therof, but ſpeciallie becauſe they be void of faith, which ordinarilie & commonlie is beſtowed vpon the faithfull,Rom. 10.17. by hearing the woord preached, as the apoſtle ſaith: or els that with out it, they are all condēned already, which is verie abſurd & beaſtlie, not onlie becauſe it tieth grace, yea the grace of ſaluation to the ſacrament, by the worke wrought, than the which what can be more vnreſonable? for ſo good and bad hauing the outward ſigne, ſhall alſo haue the thing it ſelfe, to wit, eternall life, but alſo becauſe it aboliſheth, as Gods eternall election, whereby he hath choſen thoſe that be his in Chriſt, to life euerlaſting, before the foundations of the world were laied, ſo his gratious and continuall couenant made to vs, that he will be a louing God and mercifull father to vs and to our ſeed for euer, Geneſis. 17.7. by which couenant alſo we are aſſured euen of his good will and fauor towards vs in Chriſt. By all this we may ſee, that euen for the auoiding of theſe abſurdities, and manie ſuch like, the place of the ſixt of Iohn can at no hand he vnderſtood either of the ſacrament or of the carnall eating of Chriſtes bodie in the ſame, or of anie ſuch groſſe thing whatſoeuer, but of the apprehenſion or laieng holde of him, togither with the particular application of him to our ſelues by the hand or inſtrument of faith, who euen for that purpoſe is propounded and ſet foorth vnto vs, by the miniſterie of his word and Goſpell, or (if the aduerſaries will needs haue it ſo) offered vnto vs in the vſe of the ſupper, becauſe that though the thinges bee diuerſe, repreſenting him vnto vs, as the word and ſacraments, yet there is in that reſpect but one meane giuen vs, to take holde of him by (euen as he himſelfe is but one Chriſt, that in theſe ſundrie things is exhibited vnto vs) and that is that great grace and gift of faith, which we muſt vſe in in the word and ſacraments, as men doo in the apprehending of Chriſtes righteouſneſſe: which righteouſneſſe of his, though it be not eſſentiallie dwelling in vs, yet it is effectuallie made ours, whileſt we apprehend and lay holde of it by a ſound and ſure faith, applieng the ſame alſo vnto our owne hearts: and euen in like ſort is Chriſt God and man, togither withall his merits, not onelie offered, but laid holde of in the word and ſacraments, yea and comfortablie felt likewiſe to the ſpirituall ſuſtentaion and nouriſhment of our ſoules, whereof alſo this is a good reaſon, that of like thinges, there is alwaies, and ſo ſhould be continuallie a like conſideration.

The ſecond place obiected, is that ſentence reported by the three euangeliſts, Matthew, Marke, and Luke, and Saint Paule himſelfe alſo, reciting the inſtitution of the ſupper, which our ſauior Chriſt vſed, ſaieng: This is my bodie: Matth. 26.26. Marke. 14.22. Luke. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24. which they vrge in the letter after this ſort. Hath not Chriſt ſaid it in plaine termes? and ſhall not I beleeue it, though that my carnall vnderſtanding can not conceiue the ſame? To all which I anſwer, firſt that the queſtion is not of the bare woordes or letter, for we as well as they confes the ſame, and what man hath there beene that euer doubted thereof? yea what heretike euer was there, that would not, or did not allege the letter of the text, for the mainetenance & vpholding of his hereſie or error? but of the true ſence and right meaning thereof, which whether they or we haue & gaine, ſhall I hope appeare anon, to the vpright reader. Secondlie, we confeſſe alſo, that we are bound to beleeue all ſuch things as are cōprehended in gods word, yea though our ſenſuall reaſon cannot in deed comprehend the ſame: for be it farre from vs, to labor to bring the incomprehē ſible truth of the eternall maieſtie within the ſtrait bounds and limits of mans vnderſtanding, no though he were regenerated, and had receiued a great meaſure of the graces of Gods holie ſpirit: and yet in ſuch ſort muſt we beleeue them all, & that to ſuch ends alſo, as the lord himſelfe hath appointed, at no hand ſtretching thē further, than the Lord would haue vs, for that is to be wiſe in our owne eies, & to make our ſelues more ſharpe ſighted than God, nor yet reſtreining them to narrower purpoſes than the Lord hath laied them out for, for that were, at the leaſt, great vnfaithfulneſſe, both towards the Lord himſelfe, and men alſo, neither yet failing in the allegation of them, either in the matter, maner, or ende, for if wee do ſo, we doo nothing elſe therby, but heape vp iuſt condemnation againſt our owne ſoules, but reuerently receiuing them, and faithfully alleadging them in that iuſte meaſure, weight, and proportion, that the Lorde himſelfe hath left them vnto vs, euen as his onlie lawful and currant coine, which we can not clip, imbaſe, or impaire anie manner of waye, without high treaſon againſt his eternall maieſtie. Nowe concerning the wordes, and the plaineneſſe of them, I ſay, that other wordes, both in the old and new Teſtament, are as plaine as they, which yet notwithſtanding muſt be otherwiſe interpreted, than the woords themſelues ſeeme to import, or elſe, not onelye abſurdities in reaſon, but errors in religion will inſue therevpon. For example in the booke of Exodus, the paſchal lambe, with the ceremonies belonging thereto, is called, The Lords paſſeouer: Exod. 12.11. whereas nowe we knowe, and no manne can chooſe but confeſſe, that it was not the Lordes paſſeouer in deede, but ſignified and ſette out the ſame rather. For the Lordes paſſeouer was his ouer-paſſing or paſſing by the Iſraelites houſes, marked wyth the bloud of the Lambe, to the Egyptians, there to deſtroy the firſt borne. So likewiſe in the newe Teſtament,Iohn 15.5. Chriſt ſayth of hym ſelfe, I am the vine, than the which what can bee more plaine? And yet wee acknowledge wyth our mouthes, and beleeue in our heartes, that Chriſt was no naturall vine, but rather that hee calleth himſelfe ſo, in a certaine reſemblaunce, becauſe looke what propertie the fruit of the vine hath in reſpect of our bodies, to witte, to comforte menne, and to make them glad heartes, the ſame hath Chriſt and the fruites of his grace receiued by Fayth, in reſpect of our ſoules, namelie, to repleniſhe our heartes wyth all Spirituall ioye and gladneſſe, both of this life, and of the life to come. And as the braunches of the vine, haue nothing of themſelues, but all that they haue, they haue it from the vine it ſelfe, ſo none whoſoeuer they be can bring foorth fruit, but by abiding in him, and beeing made fruitefull thorow hys grace. And euen in like manner is the bread of the Lordes Supper called hys bodie, becauſe (as wee haue ſaide before) looke what proper and peculiar office, the bread hath or yeeldeth to our naturall bodies, namely, to nouriſh and ſtrengthen the ſame, the like dooth Ieſus Chriſtes bodie broken, taken hold of by Faith, Spirituallie communicate vnto our ſoules, namelie, it feedeth and ſtrengtheneth them, to the aſſured hope and feeling of eternall life. And this maner of ſpeech, attributing that to the ſigne which is proper and peculiar to the thing ſignified, is very vſuall in the Scripture, as a man meanely conuerſant in the ſame may plainelie perceiue: the cauſe whereof, is, the ſtraight analogy, proportion, & agreement, which is between ye ſigne, & the thing ſignified, and not anie other reſpect of conſubſtantiation, tranſubſtantiation, or any ſuch like fantaſticall dotage. Beſides all theſe thinges, the very circumſtaunces of time, place, perſon, and manner of dooing, doo ſufficientlie ſette out the vanitie and vntrueth of this groſſe interpretation. For this Sacrament beeing inſtituted by Chriſt him ſelfe a little before his death, in the preſence o • the Apoſtles (who had all their ſenſes ſatiſfied, in the beholding, hearing, and feeling of the naturall bodie of our Sauiour Chriſt) in the viſible elements of bread and wine, he himſelfe ſitting at the tabl • with them, and not onely in their hearing ſpeaking theſe woordes, but alſo in their ſight and preſence actuallie breaking the bread, it coulde not be that that bread offered vnto them, as the pledge of his bodie, ſhoulde be his naturall bodie or bodie of fleſh: vnleſſe you will ſaye, that Chriſt had two bodies, one ſitting at the Table, inſtituting the action of the Supper, and adminiſtring the ſame in his own perſon, and an other borne in his handes, and deliuered vnto the Apoſtles, than the which what can be, not onely more abſurde and blaſphemous, in reſpect of our Sauiour Chriſt himſelfe, he being by this means made a monſter, and not become man, but alſo more vnprofitable or vncertain to vs, as which might iuſtly prouoke vs to dout whether of his bodies were crucified for our tranſgreſſions? And thus as wee doo, for good cauſes before ſpecified, as you ſee reiect this groſe ſenſe, ſo for the inſtruction of the ignoraunt, and ſtrengthening of the weake, we wil in a fewe lines putte downe the true meaning of theſe wordes. For the better performaunce whereof I woulde haue this to bee noted in the firſt place, which I am ſure alſo no man of ſoūd iudgement can well deny, that all woords and ſayings whatſoeuer, muſt be expounded, according to the ſubiect, argument, or matter whereof they intreat: and therfore theſe woordes alſo, ſpeaking particularly of the Lordes ſupper, muſt of neceſſitie be vnderſtoode of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauior Chriſt, exhibited vnto vs in that ſupper. Otherwiſe wee muſt ſaye, that Chriſt ſpake of one thing, and meant an other, which as it might be iniurious to our ſelues, wee not knowing which way to take Chriſtes wordes, ſo ſhoulde it accuſe him for want of plaine dealing, which dotage differeth not muche from blaſphemie againſt his perſon. Secondlie, I would haue this to be remembred, that ſeeing all, one and other, both we, and our aduerſaries, confes theſe woordes to be ſpoken of the Sacrament, wee muſt not gather that the word bodie is otherwiſe attributed to the bread than the nature and qualitie (as a manne would ſay) of ſacraments wil beare: for thē if we ſhould grant that, wee might eaſilie deſtroy and ouerthrow al the ſacraments, that either haue bene or are in the Church of God, becauſe in this behalfe or reſpect there is a like proportion to bee obſerued in one, as in al, and if one be defaced in reſpect of a wrong ſenſe, the reſt can hardly or not at all ſtande vpright. For ſith the ſcripture ſpeaking of Sacraments, vſeth one ordinarie and common kinde of ſpeach to them all, what reaſon can there be ſhewed, that the words in one ſacrament being vnderſtoode ſo, the ſelfe-ſame wordes ſhoulde not haue the ſelfe-ſame ſenſe and meaning in other? Thirdly, that this is the nature of all ſacraments, that the elements and rites vſed in the ſame, be true and effectuall, not ſignes onelie, but teſtimonies and pledges alſo of thoſe thinges, for the ſignifieng and ſubiecting of which vnto our ſenſes, they were ordayned, otherwiſe the nature of a ſacrament ſhould be ouerthrowen, which conſiſteth of an outwarde and viſible element, and of an inward and inuiſible grace, and wee ſpoiled of our faith, which is not, ne ought not to bee occupied about thoſe groſſe and earthlie matters, but vpon ſpirituall and heauenly things only. And yet when I vſe this word (ſigne) I woulde not bee taken as though I meant, that they are bare, vaine, or vnprofitable ſignes, ſuch as painters commonly vſe to make, but euen thus far forth effectuall, that it is no more true & certaine, that we ſee the ſame wyth our eies, touch them wyth our handes receue them with our mouths and eat them, than that it is alſo as true & certaine, that the Lord exhibiteth and offereth vnto vs, yea, and giueth vs alſo, whatſoeuer they repreſent vnto vs, that is, the very bodie and bloud of our ſauior Chriſt & the fruits & effects flowing from the ſame, to be the ſpiritual food of our ſoules, to the full poſſeſſion of eternall life. Theſe rules being thus then obſerued, I gather & put downe this true and holie ſenſe of theſe wordes: This is my bodie, that is to ſay, that the bread which Chriſt tooke, bleſſed, brake, and gaue vnto his diſciples, appointing the ſame to bee vſed, as the element of this action, and to bee continued in hys Church, in ſuch forme and ſort as he did inſtitute it, vntill his comming againe, is ſacramentally and ſpiritually, beeing receiued and eaten by faith, a ſure ſigne, and an effectuall pledge, that Chriſts body is become the ſpirituall foode of our ſoules. And I vſe theſe woordes, ſacramentally and ſpiritually, that thereby I might meete with their groſſe ſlaunder, who, when they heare of a ſign, and a thing ſignified, ſaye, that wee doo euacuate and make of no force the Lordes ſupper. No, wee are ſo farre off from holding any ſuch concluſion, that wee knowe, beleeue, and confeſſe, that the faithfull and duelie prepared communicants, doo beſides the outward ſignes and elements truelye receiue by the meane of faith, after a ſpirituall ſort, that which is repreſented by the outward elements, to wit, whole Chriſt, with all his giftes and graces. And yet for the dooing of this, we do not pull Chriſtes bodie out of heauen, or elſe imagine either Tranſubſtantiation, or any ſuch like deuiſe, but onely thinke vpon and beleeue, the ſacramentall coniunction of the ſigne, and the thing ſignified, for thoſe thinges can not ſtand with the trueth of Chriſtes manhoode, as hath beene before ſhewed, neither indeede are they neceſſarie to ſaluation, becauſe that to the ende, we may be made partakers of chriſt, it is not of neceſſitie required, that his bodie ſhoulde be really preſent vppon earth, but it rather behooueth vs, by the power of the Holie ghoſt, and thorowe faith, to mount vppe into heauen, and there to lay hold of him, that wee may ſit with him in the heauenlie places, which in this life can not bee perfourmed in anye other ſorte, than in a ſpirituall maner, and thorow faith, which faith is begotten and confirmed in vs by the holie-ghoſt, wherevnto hee vſeth as inſtrumentes, the preachyng of Gods worde, and the adminiſtration and participation of the Sacraments, by which all our ſenſes, are euen as it were, prouoked and preſſed, wholie to poſſeſſe Chriſt himſelfe. So that you ſee I doo figuratiuely expounde theſe woordes, and not groſſelie, wherevnto I am drawne alſo, partlie by the very dealing of the Papiſts themſelues, who doo not, either in the wine of the ſupper, the other part of this Sacrament, eyther in Baptiſme, the other Sacrament of the church (which two alone God hath giuen vnto it) acknowledge anie ſuch groſſe Tranſubſtantiation 〈2 pages missing〉 of in our corruption, we hardly conceiuing it now in our regeneration & newe birth, ſo coulde it not haue bin performed in the godhead alone. Not that I meane, that GOD was not able to haue forgiuen the ſinnes of his people, and to haue releaſed them from condemnation, and reſtored them to euerlaſting life, but that GOD could not by ſuffering, becauſe his eſſence and nature, is altogither impaſſible, haue ſuffered anye thing for our redemption. Wherefore, for as much as, the queſtion betweene the Tranſubſtantiators and vs, is not nowe, of the preſence of Chriſtes deitie in the Sacrament, but of the preſence of his humane body, we ſay, and flatly affirme it alſo, that if we ſhoulde grant this, yet could it no whit at all preiudice vs, neither coulde they gaine their cauſe thereby, for vnleſſe they can proue Chriſt, as he is man, to be omnipotent, and euery where (which thing they ſhall neuer bee able to doo) they haue ſaide as much, as if they had ſaide nothing at all. But let vs for reaſoning ſake graunt them this muche, that Chriſt as hee is man, were omnipotent, euen as GOD the Father, or hee himſelfe in reſpect of his Godhead is: Dooth it therefore followe, that becauſe hee can doo euerie thing, hee therefore either will doo the ſame, or indeede dooth it? I ſuppoſe verilye, no. For beſides that, in Schooles it is commonlie ſaide, a poſſe ad eſſe, the conſequence or reaſon is not good, which were ſufficient aunſweare to this friuolous and vaine obiection, mannes reaſon in the blindneſſe and corruption of it, beeing endued wyth ſtrength and force enough to aunſweare the ſame: beſides this, I ſay, wee that are truelie taught of GOD, both by his worde and ſpirite, do knowe, that though wee beleeue, that the Lorde can doo whatſoeuer pleaſeth him both in heauen and in earth, which ſerueth wonderfully to magnifie hys almightie power in the exceeding excellencie thereof, and greatlie to ſtrengthen our weake faith, in the dayes of our calamities and diſtreſſes, yet notwythſtanding we firmelie beleeue, that hee will not onelie doo nothing, but that hee can not doo anie thing in regarde of vs, contrarie vnto that will of his, that hee hath reuealed for vs in his word. For euen as a manne of might on earth, hauing giuen foorth hys ſpeache of aſſurance in the woorde of a Prince or Chriſtian, though perhappes to one farre inferiour to himſelfe, is yet notwythſtanding tied thereby, not as in reſpect of his power, for that remaineth as greate after as before, but as in regarde of his credite, and the perſons to whome hee hath by his woorde after a ſorte, as it were bounde himſelfe: ſo is it wyth the Lord to vsward. And the reaſon of this is, not the abridgement or ſhortening of his power, (for be it farre from mortall men, to preſume in any thing, though neuer ſo litle, to reſtrain the eternal power of the immortall God) but becauſe his will and power (I meane of the ſame, as they are reuealed to vs by his woorde, and particularlie by his promiſes made vnto vs therin concerning the ſame) be in reſpect of vs, ſo conioyned and knit together, that looke whatſoeuer hee will doo, that hee can doo, and looke whatſoeuer he can do, that hee will doo. Oh howe vnreaſonable is this, that wee will giue earthlie Potentates leaue, becauſe of their high callings and excellent wiſedome, that wee ſuppoſe to bee in them nowe and then, to hedge in the boundes of their power and authoritie, by their woordes at their owne pleaſure, and will not graunt or yeelde ſo muche to the Almightie? Surelie there is very great and good reaſon to the contrarie, for as for menne, by reaſon of the blindeneſſe and ignorauncie of their owne heartes they can not well tell when it is good, either to ſtraiten or enlarge themſelues, whereas GOD, by reaſon of the fulneſſe of goodneſſe that is in him can not chooſe but doo good, whether he inlarge or abridge himſelfe. But to make all this plaine, by one or two examples in ſteade of manie, we are all perſwaded, that God can not drowne the worlde anie more, wyth the waters of an vniuerſall floud, becauſe wee knowe by his woorde he will not, for the more certaine and aſſured ſealing vppe of the ſame in our heartes, and not for anie diſcredite vnto hym, or ſhortening of hys arme and power, hee hath not onelie geuen vs his comfortable and ſweete woorde of promiſe, but hath ſette his bowe in the cloudes, Gen. 9.12, 13, &c to bee a moſte effectuall pledge of the ſame vnto vs. Agayne, wee all doo knowe and beleeue, that though GOD, in reſpect both of hymſelfe, and his almighty power, with whome all thinges, yea, the moſt hardeſt, are poſſible, can if he would ſaue all men, yet we feare not to ſaye and affirme, that in reſpect of vs hee can not ſaue all menne, becauſe wee knowe by his reuealed will in his woorde, that hee will not ſaue them all. For ſome, as well for the manifeſtation of hys iuſtice and iudgement againſt all vngodlineſſe, muſt bee the veſſelles ordayned for deſtruction, as well as others alſo for the declaration of his mercie, in ſauing whom hee will, veſſelles of ſaluation and eternall life. And euen the like maie we conclude, touching this matter of the Supper, namelie, that though wee were perſwaded or ſhoulde graunt, agaynſt all trueth and reaſon, that Chriſt, as hee is GOD might doo what hee woulde, or as hee is man, might bee euery where, yet becauſe hee hath reuealed the contrarye in his woorde, and namelie, that hee will haue hys bodye to bee circumſcriptible and tied to a place, to wit, Heauen, yea, which is more, to a certaine place in heauen (for though Chriſt as in reſpect of hys eternall Godhead, fill Heauen and earth, and the heuen of heuens is not able to conteine him, yet in reſpect of his humane bodie, though it be glorified, he is & muſt be conteined in ſome part of the heauens) that therefore it can be no iniury at all to him, neither any debaſing of his omnipotent power, to ſay that now he cannot be bodilie in the ſacrament, much leſſe bodilie in ſo manie ſacraments, as be celebrated and miniſtred in ſo ſundrie and infinit places at one time, no more than it is to God the father, in ſaieng that now he cannot drowne the world, or ſaue the reprobat, as hath beene before declared.

Thus much I thinke ſufficient and inough to all theſe obiections, being willing heere to finiſh this preſent ſhort treatiſe, ſauing that I haue thought good in this place to adde (euen as a chalenge to the aduerſe partie, and as matter of neceſſarie inſtruction, to ſuch as either be ſimplie ignorant (for as for the malicious blinde, it is almoſt impoſſible to reclame them) or doo alreadie in ſome meaſure ſee the truth) theſe three points following.

1 Firſt, that I am readie in all holy loue largelie to anſwer anie thing that chriſtianlie ſhall be further obiected concerning this queſtion: I ſay chriſtianlie obiected: for if anie ſhall either curiouſlie or captiouſlie propound anie thing, I thinke it moſt conuenient, rather to leaue ſuch in their owne follie for a ſeaſon, till it ſhall pleaſe God, at ſome one time or other, euen extraordinarilie as it were, to make them to ſee the ſame, if it ſhall ſo pleaſe him, than to ſpend time, and to trauell in fatiſfieng of their vaine curioſities.

2 Secondlie, that though this point of tranſubſtantiation, brought in by papiſts, be great and groſſe concerning the matter of the ſupper, yet that they faile not alone heerein, which might perhaps make their hereſie leſſe heinous, but holde manie moe errors concerning that point, ſome of them as palpable, if not more groſſe and blaſphemous than this, and ſome of them leſſe. To purſue them all, and in a large ſort, I minde not at this preſent, becauſe it hath beene alreadie performed by men of great excellencie, & the Lord may heerafter giue a more fit occaſion, & yet I will rehearſe & touch a few, deſiring the godlie reader, with all holie wiſdome, to conſider both of them, and the reſt of that ſort.

1 Firſt, in that they make it a ſacrifice propitiatorie (as they call it) for the quicke • nd the dead: by which they doo not one • ie ſcorne God, & deride men, whileſt they make men beleeue, that God will be plea • ed with ſuch odde deuiſes, and that his • uſtice ſhall be anſwered with the works • f our owne inuention, cauſing vs alſo • o thinke that ſinne is no heinous thing • hat can be expiated and doone away by • he offering vp a poore thinne cake, as • hough that ſpirituall and innumerable offenſes might be taken away with bodi • ie exerciſes, and that not of a holie and innocent man, but manie times of one of the woorſt amongſt the people: but vtterlie alſo euacuat by that means, and make of no force the eternall preeſthood and ſacrifice of our ſauiour Chriſt, which conſiſteth ſpeciallie in this, that he hath once for all vpon the altar of the croſſe, offered vp himſelfe vnto God the father, a full and ſufficient ſacrifice for the ſinnes of the people, as the apoſtle plainelie prooueth in manie places of his Epiſtle to the Hebrues. But no maruell that they ſhould annihilat and deface Chriſtes offices, which deſtroy his natures, and by conſequent his whole perſon alſo (as theſe men doo by confounding the proprieties of either nature, as hath beene before declared) yea and ouerthrow all their own religion: for if the ſacrifice of the maſſ • (as they call it) will doo away all ſinne what neede wee regard praier to dead • ſaints, auricular confeſſion, the popes ſupremacie, and a thouſand more ſuch abhominations, ſeeing that by ſetting a ſoul • preeſt on worke, they may haue full forgiuenes? and why ſhould we eſteeme pardons, indulgences, and ſuch like traſh and trumperie? nay rather, why ſhould they not liue as they luſt, not onlie as epicures, but as brute beaſts, ſeeing he may be aſſured for mony, that that which another performeth for him, ſhall be auailable both to bodie and ſoule, and that to eternall ſaluation: but fie vpon all ſuch beaſtlie & blaſphemous dotages.

2 Secondlie, there is but a little leſſe leauen in that matter that they hold of vncomitancie, by which they haue not onelie ſpoiled the people of the vſe of the cuppe, which both by Chriſtes owne inſtitution, & by his expreſſe commandement, ſaieng: Drinke ye all of this, doth in all truth and vprightnes belong vnto them, and by conſequent alſo robbed them of the frutes & effects of his bloud, as the forgiueneſſe of their ſinnes, and their full reconcilement to almightie God: but alſo accuſed our • auior Chriſt of follie and raſhneſſe, inſti • uting more ſignes in the ſacrament of his ſupper, than he needed. And all this they • aue done vnder this ſhadow, that becauſe • o bodie is without bloud, and they haue • efore (preſuppoſing that the bread is tur • ed into the bodie, as in deed if men will • reſuppoſe, either vnpoſſible or vntrue • hings, euerie thing will follow of it) ea • en the bodie, therefore muſt it needs fol • ow, that they haue drunke alſo his bloud. Tell vs I pray you, why might not we as • ell ſay, reſpecting alwaies the ſacramēt, • hat when men haue drunke of the cuppe, • hey haue eaten his fleſh? for if the par • aking of the one include the other, or if • hole Chriſt, as they ſay, be in euery part • f the viſible elements, then why doo not • en receiuing the wine, as well receiue • e bodie as the bloud? or why may not we • y, that eating is drinking, or drinking is • ting? or why doo not they themſelues • miniſter it in the element of wine oue • e, as well as in the bread alone? or why • ay not we, euen beating them with their owne aſſertions, of an vnbloudie ſacrifice, and of the reall preſence of Chriſtes naturall bodie in the ſame, ſay and affirme that the bodie may be there without the bloud or the bloud without the bodie? for if the ſacrifice conteine the naturall and fleſhi • bodie of our ſauior, and yet of it ſelfe it is vnbloudie, we ſee no reaſon why we may not ſaflie conclude, that the bodie is ther • without bloud? But I know not whethe • heerin I ſhould blame thē for their beaſtlineſſe, or reprooue them for their pride that dare thus preſumptuouſlie alter th • Lords very ordinance and inſtitution.

3 Thirdlie their adoration is as corrup • and filthie, whileſt they cauſe men t •• commit groſſe and palpable idolatrie, i • falling downe before a peece of bread (what doo I ſay? I know not whether I may call it by that name or no, for it ma • be diſputed of, whether their maſſe ca •• be bread) and worſhipping a wafer cake the worke of mens hands. And if it wer • a foule fault in the Gentils, to turne th • glorie of the incorruptible God, int • the ſimilitude of the image of a co • ruptible man, Rom. 1.23. and of birds, and four footed beaſts, and of creeping thinge all which notwithſtanding had life in thē, and were in deed the creatures of GOD, what muſt it be in the papiſts, who tranſforme his wonderfull maieſty into a muſtie or whory cake, which though it be kept but a ſmall while, is yet notwithſtanding ſubiect to putrifaction and wormes? But ſuppoſe it were Chriſtes body, as they ſay it is, yet I affirme, that they may not adore Chriſtes bodie alone, yea and that they cannot worſhip the ſame of it ſelfe, without horrible idolatrie, wherof alſo the reaſon is plaine and euident, namelie becauſe it is a creature, to which it is not lawfull to giue that honor that is due vnto the creator alone, becauſe he being ielous ouer his owne glory, will not haue it giuen to anie other. For though it be true, that Chriſt as he is god, is to be worſhipped as his father: yea & Chriſt God & man in one perſon is to be adored, yet we cannot without great ſin, and greeuous offenſe againſt God & his word, worſhip the humanity or manhood of our ſauior Chriſt onlie. And if they will ſay, as I my ſelfe haue heard ſome of thē ignorantly affirme, yt if Chriſt God & man may be worſhipped, therefore chriſt alſo as he is mā may be worſhipped: I anſwer, that beſides, it is a fallacie or deceit in reaſoning, called in ſchooles Fallacia diuiſionis, it is a flat contrarie to the truth of chriſtian religion, which teacheth vs, that many things may be ſpoken of the perſon of our ſauior Chriſt, which can not rightlie or truelie be ſaid of either nature, and the reaſon is, becauſe as the vnitie of the perſon muſt be maineteined & vpheld, ſo muſt godlie men haue an eſpeciall regard, that they confound not the ſeuerall proprieties of either nature. To make this plaine by a point or two. A man may ſaflie ſay, that Chriſt God and man in one perſon was crucified on the croſſe, & died for our ſinnes, whereof alſo this is the verie true and ſufficient reaſon, becauſe in his whole perſon he performed the worke of our redemption, and not in either of the natures alone, or by it ſelfe: but nowe if heerevpon a man ſhould ſay and conclude, therfore Chriſt God was crucified for our ſinnes, beſides that he ſhould vtter an errour or hereſie in chriſtian religion, hee ſhould ſpeake blaſphemie againſt God, whoſe nature (as we haue ſaid heertofore) is altogither impoſſible. Likewiſe a man may ſaflie ſay and affirme, that the virgin Marie was the mother of our Sauiour Chriſt, as hee is God and man in one perſon: the reaſon is, becauſe that euen from the verie moment of his bleſſed conception in the wombe of the virgine, the Godhead and the manhood,Romans. 9.5. were inſeperablie ioyned and knit togeather in that one perſon Ieſus Chriſt, who is God ouer all, to be bleſſed for euer and euer. But if herevpon a man would inferre, therefore ſhe is or may bee called the mother of God, beſides that hee ſhoulde ſpeake againſt the groundes and principles of ſounde faith, which teacheth vs, that as chriſt in reſpect of his manhood was without father, ſo in reſpect of his godhead he was without mother, he ſhold ſpeak very proudly of fleſh & bloud, and very baſely of God, as though that the creature, were in time before the creator, or God could not bee without the helpe of pore and weake women.

4 To deale with the reſeruation, circumgeſtation, or carieng it about, and with many other odde toies of their own inuention, and largely lay out the inconueniences therof, would require ſome proper and fit diſcourſe for that purpoſe, but I wil reſerue it til another time, making haſt now to handle that, which ſhalbe as the laſt, ſo in my iudgement, not the leaſt profitable part of this treatie, and that is, how a man ſhould drawe neere vnto ſuch reuerent miſteries, to gods glory, and his owne good, and howe hee may beſt come, to reape and receiue fruite and comforte by the ſame, ſpeciallie ſith it pleaſeth God, to offer to him ſuch excellent graces therby, wherein I mind not to deal largely, becauſe, as you ſee thorowe all this diſcourſe, I profeſſe breuitie and ſhortnes, and to deale fully & perfectlie I can not, both by reaſon of the excellencie of the thinges to bee handled, and alſo by meane of the maime, that wee find in our knowledg in this life, in which we know in part, 1. Corinth 13.9. and prophecie in part, as the Apoſtle ſayth. And yet not to ſaye ſomewhat, ſith the Lord hath made me to feele ſomewhat, were not onelie to deface the graces that God in the riches of his mercie, hath beſtowed vpon me poore and miſerable wretch yt I am, but to defraude my good brethren, and the people of God, of ſome eyther profitable inſtruction, or ſweete comfort, that the Lord hath beene pleaſed to acquaint mee withall: wherein ſetting Gods glorie, chieflie before mine eies, and the good of his children, I will, truſting in the multitude of his mercies aſſaye, to vtter that little, that I my ſelfe in ſome meaſure feele in this matter.

The thinges, that euerie man, is principallie to deale in, concerning this poynt, may, in my minde, bee well reduced, into three ſhort heads or titles.

Frſt, becauſe no manne is to doo a thyng without deepe conſideration before hande of the matter hee taketh in hande, wee are to ſee what hee is to perfourme, before the communicatyng or receauing of this Sacrament, and this I will call in one terme, preparation.

Secondlie, becauſe in the action and execution of euery good and lawfull thing, a man is to haue his mind wholy bent and ſet vpon the ſame, we are to weigh, what he is to do or thinke vpon, in the time, and at the verie inſtant of receiuing, and this I will name meditation.

Thirdly, becauſe there is no good thing ſo wel done, but ye pleaſure or profit in time afterward, may therby redound to the doer yea becauſe ther is nothing ſo wel done by men, but yt by reaſon of the imperfection of mans nature, ſom thing muſt ſtil be added, we are to looke what he is to do, after the time of receiuing, and this I will call action or practiſe.

Preparation which is the firſt, reſpecteth either God or man. Now that which concerneth God, is comprehended vnder ſound knowledge, true faith, & vnfeigned repentance, as that which concerneth man is compriſed vnder ſincere loue. And I call them ſound, true, vnfeigned, and ſincere, & yet not perfect, becauſe perfection properlie ſignifieng that, vnto which nothing can be added, can not be found in man, during this natural life of his. And this I ſpeake, partlie to ſtoppe the mouthes of ſuch as dream of a perfection in this life, to groſſe an error to bee largelye confuted, becauſe Gods word is moſt plaine in that behalfe, & the manifold imperfections, of thoſe that would ſeeme moſt perfect, do plentifullie improue the ſame: and partly, as in a comfortable ſort to teach vs, that our imperfections ſhould not hinder vs, from drawing nigh thereto, (ſo that we do not foſter and feed our ſelues in them) ſeeing that otherwiſe the ſacrament ſhould ſtand vs in no ſteed, if we were not vnperfect, becauſe it is a holie helpe, and ſingular ſuccour ordeined by God him ſelfe, againſt our naturall infirmitie and weakenes.

1 By knowledge I vnderſtand not anie humaine ſciences, or worldly faculties, or a meane inſight into the groundes of chriſtian religion, but an aſſured vnderſtanding, as of the moſt materiall pointes of our faith, (for example, of the vnitie of the godhead, of the Trinitie in the perſons, of the names, nature, perſon and offices of our ſauiour &c.) ſo ſpecially of this point of the Lordes ſupper it ſelfe, (for bee it farre from vs, to knowe others, and to bee ignorant in that whereof wee are to bee partakers) we keeping our ſelues farre off and free, from all erronious opinions, either of Tranſubſtantiation, conſubſtantiation, or any ſuch like, either beſides or againſt the will of God, reuealed in his word: which as it muſt onely be the direction of all our actions, ſo muſt it alwaies bee the rule of our religion alone. And this ſound knowledge of the groundes and principles of chriſtian religion, and that in ſuch ſort as god hath reuealed thē vnto vs in his word, muſt of neceſity go before al other things, both becauſe it is as a man would ſay, the foundation to the houſe, & the roote to the tree, and alſo becauſe if wee know not the good will and pleaſure of our GOD, we can neuer either beleeue or doo the ſame: for euen as in worldlie matters, if men bee ſet about the thinges, they haue no ſkill in, they knowe not where to begin, or howe to proceede, or when to make an ende, ſo in ſpirituall thinges, they are much more blinde and backwarde, for in outwarde thinges of this life, men may ſomewhat bee holpen, by the light of reaſon, and the liuelines of their owne witte, but in the matters of God, the more they rely or leane vpon that, the further off they are from atteining the trueth, becauſe the Apoſtle telleth vs, that the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the ſpirit of God, 1. Corinth. 2.14. for they are fooliſhnes vnto him, neither can he know them becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned. Roman. 8.7. And in another place: the wiſdome of the fleſh is enmitie againſt God, for it is not ſubiect to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

2 By faith I meane, not only a generall beliefe, of all the canonicall books of ye old & new teſtament, or a grounded knowledg alone, of the points & principles of chriſtian religion, & the truth thereof, for many wicked men proceede ſo farre, and the Apoſtle Iames telleth vs,Iames 2.19. that the diuels beleeue and tremble, but an aſſured perſwaſion, and particular application, as of al theſe things whatſoeuer, that the Lord hath reuealed in his worde, ſo ſpeciallie of his promiſes contained in the ſame, concerning either this life, or the life to come (for though our faith do generally reſpect the whole word, yet is it moſt ſpecially directed to the promiſes that god hath made vs in Chriſt,2. Corinth. 1.20. in whome all the promiſes of God are, yea and amen) euerie particular perſon beeing fullie aſſured, and certainelie perſwaded of this, that as the Lorde hath doone and promiſed the ſame, to, and for others, ſo hath hee doone and promiſed it, particularlie, to, and for himſelfe. So that we may plainely perceiue, that this faith is neceſſarie, to euery one that ſhall communicate, both becauſe that otherwiſe they being on the earth, can not take hold of Chriſt in heauen, and ſtedfaſtly apply him and all his merites to themſelues, that ſo he may become the ſpirituall foode of their ſoules, noriſhing them in the moſt certaine hope of eternall ſaluation (for faith is it by which alone, they may appropriate vnto them ſelues particularlie, Chriſt Ieſus and all his graces, to the aſſured feelyng of the free pardon and full forgiueneſſe of all their ſinnes on the one ſide, and the imputation of Chriſts righteouſneſſe on the other ſide) and alſo that thereby, they may bee fullie certified in their owne conſciences, that that which they doe, either in the adminiſtration or participation of that holy action, or Sacrament of the Lordes bodie and bloud, is acceptable before GOD, and profitable to them ſelues, becauſe without fayth it is impoſſible to pleaſe hym, Hebrues. 11.6. Roman. 14.23. and agayne: Whatſoeuer is not of faith, that ſelfe ſame is ſinne: which properties indeede, or effectes rather, if a man ſurelye haue, they ſhall make his fayth to differ, from all the vaine imaginations and ſwimming conceipts, of diuels and wicked men whatſoeuer.

3 By repentaunce I vnderſtande, a holie alteration and chaunge of oure mindes (for good reaſon is there, that where ſinne begynneth, from thence alſo ſhoulde proceede our conuerſion or turnyng to GOD) conſiſting of a ſincere hatred of all our former ſinnes and iniquities whatſoeuer both generall and particular, and of a ſounde loue, of all righteouſneſſe and well-dooing, both generall and particular: all which muſt in vs proceede from the right reuerence and louing feare, of the maieſtie of almightie God in our heartes, which holie affection dooth euerye daye by little and little worke in vs, the forſaking of our ſelues, and the ſubduing of the ſinfull luſtes and affections of our owne fleſh, to the end we may wholie reſigne and giue ouer our ſelues, to be guided and gouerned by the ſpirite of God, in the ſincere ſeruice and worſhip of his maieſtie, and in the Chriſtian performaunce of the holie dueties of charitie one of vs towardes an other, wee our ſelues, not onelie ſtanding vppe and ſtriuing againſt our generall iniquities, but alſo againſt our particular ſinnes, yea againſt theſe ſpeciall tranſgreſſions, that moſt preuaile in vs againſt the good will of our God: whereby no doubt God ſhall be greatly glorified, whileſt hee maketh his mightie power to appeare, in ſtrengthening our woonderfull weakeneſſe, againſt ſome particular wickedneſſe, and wee our ſelues ſhall reape comforte, aſſuring our ſelues of this, that hee that hath ſtrengthened vs againſt ſome one ſinne, will alſo aſſiſte vs againſt other, and ſo make the good woorkes that he hath begunne in vs, Philip. 1.6. perfect, euen vntill the day of Chriſt. So that hereby wee may ſee, that he which feeleth himſelfe truelie and vnfainedlie changed, in the affections of his minde, for his former iniquities, not onelie loathing his ſinnes, but euen himſelfe for his ſinnes ſake, and carrieth with him this holy purpoſe, neuer, thorow gods aſſiſtaunce to committe the ſame, or anie ſuche like againſt GOD or men, maie, not onely be aſſured of his vnfained repentaunce, and ſo by conſequent of the forgiueneſſe of his ſinnes, but alſo wyth boldeneſſe, and yet notwythſtanding with reuerence in reſpect of GOD, and with humbleneſſe of minde, in reſpect of hymſelfe, may drawe neere to the partaking of thoſe holie myſteries.

4 By loue, which is the thing that concerneth men, I doo not onelie vnderſtand, the vnfained pardoning and forgiuing of others, that haue anie manner of waie treſpaſſed agaynſt vs, but alſo ſound reconciliation after offences committed, one of vs towardes an other, yea I meane further by loue, which properlie is an inward affection of the heart, the ſincere and outwarde teſtifieng of the ſame by woordes, deedes, countenaunces, and other meanes, as the Lorde ſhall geue occaſion, and our abilitie ſerue to expreſſe the ſame, and that not vnto our friendes onelie,Matth. 5.46, 47. (for what great thing doo wee if wee loue them that loue vs? But generallie to all men, though vnto ſome in greater meaſure,Galat. 6.10. as to the houſholde of faith, our wiues, children, and parents, &c: and to ſome in leſſe meaſure, as to thoſe that bee yet wythout, and bee ſomewhat further off by nature and kinred, yea, and to our ennemies alſo, which is ſomewhat more▪ againſt which, becauſe wee doo whollie ſtriue while wee are in the corruption of oure nature, and bee woonderfullye backeward to the ſame, euen then when GOD hath in ſome meaſure aduaunced our regeneration in vs, there lieng lurking wythin vs the cinders of Hatred and Diſ-like, readye to breake foorthe into a flame, as occaſion and matter ſhall bee miniſtred, wee ſhall doo verye well to gather as many reaſons to induce vs to the practiſe thereof, as poſſibly wee can, that ſo by them, as it were by ſtrong cordes, wee may be drawen and tied, as a man would ſay, to the execution of the ſame. Firſt therefore wee haue GOD in ſundry places of his woorde, layeng that duetie vppon vs,Matth. 5.44. Luke 6.27, 24. To loue them that hate vs, to bleſſe them that curſſe vs, and to pray for them that perſecute vs. Secondlie, wee haue his owne example concurring wyth hys commaundement, hee practiſing the ſame to vs, that hee would haue vs to doo to others, namelie, louing vs, when wee were and are his ennimies. Roman. 5.10. Matth. 5.45. 1. Iohn 4.10. Thirdlye, wee haue the example of our Sauiour Chriſte, cloathed with one nature accompliſhing the ſame, praying alſo to the Father to forgiue them, Luke 23.34. that putte him to death. And leaſt anie man ſhoulde thinke, that that which Chriſte did in this caſe, woulde not bee perfourmed in and by them, eyther by reaſon of Chriſtes ſingular excellencie, or the difficultie and impoſſibilitie of the thing it ſelfe, the Lorde hath in the fourth place, for the ouercomming of that temptation, ſette before vs ſundrie of his ſeruaunts, who beeing men like vnto vs, in all reſpects,Actes 7.6 • haue yet notwythſtanding in the dayes of their fleſh doone the ſame, as we ſee particularlie in Stephan. Fiftlie, the verye Sacrament it ſelfe, and the elements in the ſame leade vs thereto,1. Corinth. 10.17 For wee that are manie are one bread and one bodie, becauſe wee are all partakers of one bread at the Lordes boorde, euen as that bread wee eate of there, is made of manie graines, and yet maketh but one loafe. Laſtlie, our owne good ſhoulde carrie vs forward to this, becauſe thereby wee prouide well for our ſelues, that ſo wee might feele the forgiueneſſe of our ſinnes before GOD, our Sauiour telling vs in plaine wordes,Matth. 6.14. That if wee doo forgiue men their treſpaſſes, our heauenlie Father wil alſo forgiue vs. And though it bee true, that wee can and doo greatlie aggrauate other mens ſinnes againſt vs, as for example, hee hath taken away my good name, he hath ſpoiled me of my goodes, hee hath killed my father, huſband, children, and a thouſand ſuche like: and what hainous offences be theſe? Yet if GOD woulde geue vs grace, vprightlie to looke into our owne ſinnes, committed eyther agaynſt other men, or Gods owne maieſtie, wee ſhall finde, that wee haue good cauſe offered, to be ready to remitte: For if men offend vs, wee doo in as great points offend others. And though that were not true, yet wee cannot denie, but that wee doo more highlie diſpleaſe Almightie GOD than men can, or doo diſpleaſe vs, and that not onelie in the notoriouſneſſe of our ſinnes, but euen in a dailie and continuall courſe of iniquitie, and in an infinite multitude of tranſgreſſions alſo. What a fearefull thing will this bee in our owne heartes, that wee woulde gladlie haue God mercifull vnto vs, in forgiuing moſt greeuous and innumerable tranſgreſſions, and wee will not remitte ſmall offences, and ſinnes ſeldome tymes committed? By this wee doo nothing elſe but caſt awaie the ſure ſeale and earneſt pennie, as it were, that our ſinnes are forgiuen vs before GOD, and refuſe a certaine pledge, that our praiers and all other good things that come from vs, are in Chriſtes obedience accepted in his ſight, yea, and moſte iniuriouſlie treade vnder our filthie feete, Gods worde, Gods example, Gods ſacraments, and many other tokens of his grace, and laſtlie, pull vpon vs a fearful vengeance from God, to be manifeſted in this life, and in the life to come. And therefore I beſeeche all the godlie, that haue care of their ſaluation, to looke heedilie to this point.

Meditation, which is the ſecond thing, and is to be vſed ſpeciallie in the tyme of the celebration of the Lordes Supper, conſiſteth chieflie in theſe points, to wit, in regarding the outwarde elementes of the Lordes Supper, that is to ſaye, the breade and the wine, and in conſidering the rites vſed, in, and aboute the ſame, as the breaking of the Breade and the pouring foorth of the Wine, and ſo forth. For though the outward things are not the matters that wee ſhoulde ſtand vppon, yet, becauſe by them, it pleaſeth the Lorde, as it were, by the hand, to leade vs vnto right excellent thinges, namelie, by them to ſette foorth vnto our Soules, the crucifieng of Chriſtes bodie, the ſheading of his bloude, and ſo foorth, and all for our tranſgreſſions, that therefore they ſhoulde not bee ſleightlie paſſed ouer, wythout verye deepe and due conſideration of the ſame. And then becauſe wee muſt not ſtay below on the earth, nor be buſied in beholding of earthlie things onelie, but muſt by faith riſe vp to heauen as it were, there to behold the abundant riches of Gods ſpirituall graces, offered and giuen to the faithfull, in, with, & by the outward elements, we are throghlie to wey what great mercies the Lord ſetteth before vs, in that holie and ſpirituall banket, which though partlie for the woorthineſſe of the giuer, and partlie alſo for the excellencie of themſelues, as alſo by the want and weakeneſſe of our blinde and dull vnderſtanding, they cannot be ſufficiently conceiued, much leſſe vttered, may yet in my mind be brought into theſe foure points following, as moſt materiall and principall.

1 God ſetteth before our eies in that holie action, firſt Chriſtes death and paſſion, togither with the benefits & effects which we reape thereby, and namelie the remiſſion and full forgiueneſſe of all our ſinnes, togither with the imputation of Chriſtes righteouſneſſe vnto vs, and the aſſured poſſeſſion of eternall life: for we doo no more verilie behold the bread broken, and the wine poured foorth in our bodily ſight and preſence, than wee do or ought by the eie of our faith, to beholde the bodie of Chriſt crucified, and his bloud ſhead vppon the croſſe, for the forgiueneſſe of our ſinnes: neither are wee more fullie or particularlie put in poſſeſſion of the bread and wine, when wee haue eaten and druncke the ſame, than wee are of Chriſt and all his merits, then when by a liuelie and ſtedfaſt faith we lay hold of him, and the moſt excellent graces, that in him are offered vnto vs, applieng them all particularly to our own ſouls, which yet that they might be more effectually pledged vppe in vs, it pleaſed the Lord to appoint, not onlie that the bread ſhould be broken, and the wine poured foorth, but that euery one of vs, ſhould ſeuerallie by him ſelfe, and for him ſelfe, take it, eate it, and drincke it, &c: that ſo wee might bee in the more full and aſſured poſſeſſion of hym and his graces.

2 Secondlie, the Lorde pledgeth out vnto vs therby, that ful and ſpirituall nouriſhement, that through Chriſt we haue, both in the outward and inward man, euen to the hope and fruition of eternall life: for euen as verilie, as that bread and wine dooth ſeeme to ſtrengthen our out-ward manne: ſo euen as verilie, yea more verilye by much, dooth Chriſte and is graces nouriſhe our ſoules: yea I ſaye more verilie, becauſe that though ſome part of the bread and wine wee receiue, bee turned into our healthfull and profitable nouriſhment, and is become as it were part of our ſubſtaunce, yet ſome of it alſo paſſeth thorowe the panch into the priuie, but Chriſte remaineth alwaies a moſt holie and ſound nutriment vnto our ſoules, no parte of him vaniſhing awaye, but hauing rather this effecte in vs, that hee is not onely turned into our ſubſtance, as the bodilie elements are in reſpect of our outward man, but rather wholie turning vs, as a man would ſay, into his moſt holie and bleſſed ſubſtance, he being not onelye a plentifull, but a pleaſaunt nouriſhment alſo, bringing alwaies with him that effect to our ſoules, that the outwarde elements doo to our bodies, namelie giuing them all ſpirituall ſtrength, and inwarde comfort,Iohn. 15.5. becauſe without him, we haue nothing, nor can doo anie thing.

3 Thirdlie, by this meanes the Lorde propoundeth vnto vs, the myſticall vnion that is betwixt Chriſt and his church, we and hee making but one bodie of his holie congregation, hee being the head thereof, and we the particular members: by which alſo, as we are inſtructed, in our holie dueties towardes him, we attempting nothing that may tend to the preiudice, hurte, or griefe of our holie head, but endeuouring euerye thing that maye be good and acceptable before him, ſo we comfortablie conceiue the great and continuall care hee hath for vs, hee performing more effectuallie by much, the duety of headſhip vnto his ſpirituall bodie the church, than a naturall head, dooth, or can to a naturall bodie, namelie, not onelie in deuiſing for the good thereof, both in generall and in particular, but alſo in yeeldyng ſence and moouyng vnto the whole bodie, and euerie ſeuerall member thereof, yea, quickening the ſame, and geuing together wyth the vnderſtanding of heauenlie care and conſcience, yea, ſome meaſure of ſtrength and power to walke therein,Epheſ. 3.12. ſo that He dwellyng in oure heartes by Fayth, wee are therby not onelie become members of his bodie, of his fleſh, and of his bloud, but alſo he maketh vs zealous, prepared, and frutefull in euerie good worke, both towards the Lord, and one of vs towards an other.

4 Fourthlie and laſtlie, the Lord deliuereth vnto vs in the vſe of his ſupper, that holie vnitie and agreement, both outward and inward, of bodie and mind, that is and ought to be knowne, felt and continued amongſt all the members of his church, whatſoeuer, or whereſoeuer they be. For euen as the bread that we are partakers of, is made of many graines, & yet maketh but one loafe, as we ſee, & as the wine that we drinke at the Lords table, is made of manie grapes, and yet maketh but one wine: ſo all the faithfull people, not onlie of one place & pariſh, but diſperſed through out the whole earth (notwithſtanding that ſome through the riches of Gods mercies haue atteined more graces than other ſome) make in deed but one holie bodie of the church. Neither doth our being of ſeuerall members one of vs to another, anie more hinder our growth in this ſame ſpirituall fellowſhip, than the varietie of mē bers in a naturall body hindereth the conſtituting and making of the whole bodie it ſelfe, nay rather, as we may well perceiue, it furthereth the ſame: for as the whole cannot be ſaid to be whole but in reſpect of all the parts whereof it conſiſteth, no more can this whole or holie bodie of the church, & euerie particular congregation throughout the world, concurring to the eſtabliſhing thereof: and yet ſo notwithſtanding, that the name church may as rightlie be attributed to euerie ſeuerall ſocietie of the faithfull, as the word earth to euerie part of the earth, or to ſpeake of the elements of the ſupper, the word bread, and the word wine, to euerie part of the bread & wine vſed in the ſame.

The third and laſt thing, is that which I called before, action, and is to be performed, as generallie all the daies of our life, ſo particularlie and ſpeciallie after the receiuing of the Lords ſupper. And though this come in the laſt place, yet is it not a matter of the leaſt importance, nay rather it is of ſuch great weight, that the former without it, be little auailable: for euen as in all humane ſciences, knowlege, though it be neuer ſo exquiſit, is without action & practiſe commonlie counted but a vaine conceit, ſo in ſpirituall vnderſtanding, that is muche more true, becauſe if a man knowe neuer ſo muche of Gods mercies, and meditate neuer ſo deeply in the ſame, yet if that by the ſame he be not lead, as it were, by the hand, both humbly to praiſe God for them, and hartily praie vnto him, for the continuance and increaſe of them, with grace to embrace them, and to vſe them well, it is to himſelfe and others as if it were nothing. Now this matter that we call action conſiſteth:

1 Firſt, in earneſt praier vnto God, not onelie for a cleare ſight of the graces offered, bicauſe we are blind to perceue them, but alſo for a liuely and continuall feeling of the ſame, becauſe we doo eaſilie choake and ſmother them vp, yea, for the plentiful fructifieng of the word of God, and his ſacraments in our heartes, becauſe wee our ſelues bee barren and ill ground, and can hardlie bring foorth good fruit, though we haue haue very much coſt and labor beſtowed vpon vs. And this duetie muſt be performed, not for the time preſent alone, as whileſt we are in the publike exerciſes, or for the day of communicating onelie, returning afterwards as filthie ſwine to our former wallow, or vncleane dogges to our vomite againe: for alas what will that auaile vs, but to a more fearefull iudgement, and iuſt condemnation, becauſe wee continue in ſin, & abuſe the meanes of our ſanctification and purging, but euen for the whole race and courſe of our liues, that as there is no day nor houre of a day going ouer our heades, wherein wee ſtand not in neede of ſome bleſſing from the Lorde, ſo there ſhould few times eſcape vs, wherein we would not do to God this duty, that we beleeue to be acceptable to him, bicauſe he hath commanded it, and ſo profitable vnto our ſelues, bicauſe it reacheth vnto euerie part and period, or ſtate of our whole life.

2 Secondly, in humble thankeſgiuing, as for all the vneſtimable riches and treaſures of grace and goodneſſe generallie: which it pleaſeth him in his Church, and namelie by the vſe of his word and ſacraments, not onelie to offer, but alſo to beſtow vpon his people, ſo ſpecially for the death and obedience of hys Sonne, the bleſſing of all bleſſings, that is to ſaye, the moſt excellent bleſſing, the Lord beſtowing thereby vppon vs all graces both bodilie & ſpirituallie: bodilie, as the ſanctification of all his creatures vnto vs, which otherwiſe we continuing in our ſinnes (as we muſt needs haue doone, if Chriſt had not died for vs) ſhould haue bin vncleane vnto vs: and ſpirituall, as the forgiueneſſe of our ſins, the imputation of Chriſtes righteouſneſſe (which we muſt of neceſſitie beleeue, becauſe otherwiſe God may as well-condemne vs for want of righteouſneſſe, as for our notorious tranſgreſſions) and manie ſuch other particulars before recited. And that we may be the better prouoked to this great dutie of thankfulnes, it ſhall be good for vs, not onelie to alot vnto our ſelues ſometime in euerie day, wherin we will take a view ſo far foorth as we can, of all the graces of God both generall and particular, beſtowed vpon our ſelues & others, but alſo deeplie to conſider, firſt the perſon that giueth the ſame, who is the Lord of heauen and earth, mercifull no doubt euen vnto thouſands of generations, to them that loue him, and keepe his commandements: ſecondlie the excellencie of the things beſtowed, which beſides that they are bodily and ſpirituall, temporal and eternall, ariſe to ſuch a huge number, in the ſeueral ſorts and great varietie of them that are not able to thinke of them, or anie one of them, according to their woorthineſſe, muche leſſe to account or number them: and thirdlie to conſider our ſelues receiuing them, to whome the Lorde freelie and of his owne goodneſſe, giueth theſe great mercies, not onelie when wee had not deſerued the leaſt of them, but euen then when euery one of vs, had deſerued eternall death and condemnation to be poured foorth vpon vs and ours.

3 And laſtlie in care and conſcience of a moſt holie and chriſtian conuerſation, that ſeeing wee are in the holie Supper made partakers by faith of Chriſts death and reſurrection, and that wee fullie perſwade our ſelues by the truth of the word,Roman. 4.25. that he did not onlie die for our ſinnes, and riſe for our righteouſneſſe, but alſo performed that excellent and great worke to teach vs,Roman. 6.1. Coloſſ. 3.1. by his death to die to vngodlineſſe, and by his reſurrection to riſe vp to that holineſſe, that may bee acceptable before God, profitable to our brethren, and comfortable to our ſelues, wee hauing by that meanes, and to that end our ſpiritual life and being from him, that therefore we ſhould liue ſoberlie, righteouſlie, Titus. 2.12. and godlie in this preſent euill world, and that in the ſound affections of our harts before God, and in words and deeds before men, that when it ſhall pleaſe him to finiſh the daies of our weariſome pilgrimage, we ſtedfaſtlie looking for that bleſſed hope, and full-fruition of eternall life, may be glorified with him in eternall bleſſednes: which thing the Lord grant vs, euen for his crucified Chriſtes ſake, to whom, with the Father, and the Holie ghoſt, three perſons and one eternall God, be giuen all honor praiſe, power & glorie, both of vs and of all people, euen now and at all times for euer and euer: So be it.