WHen the time did nowe drawe neare, Ephes. 5.2. that our Sauiour Christ was to offer that sweete smel­ling sacrifice and oblati­on of himselfe vpon the Altar of the crosse for our redemption & [Page] reconciliation: it seemed good to his heauenly wisedome to ordaine this Sa­crament to be a perpetuall memoriall, remembrance and pledge vnto vs of his death and passion vntill his comming a­gaine. 1. Cor. 11.25.26. And because the law did require the Paschal lambe at that time to be ea­ten, he comming not to breake, but to fulfill the lawe, that he might discharge all our breaking of the law, Matth. 5.17. did first with his disciples according to the law eat the passouer, and so did put an end vnto the same, and then did institute this his sup­per to succeed in his Church for euer in the place thereof. That as he had or­dayned baptisme to succéed in the roome of Circumcision, so he would haue this Sacrament to succeed in the place of the Pascall Lambe: and as they had béene Sacraments and seales of the olde Te­stament before his comming in the flesh: so these might be after his comming sa­craments and seales of the new Testa­ment and couenant whereof we reade Hieremie. 31.31. and Hebrewes 8.8. Therefore the Euangelist in the first words of my text saith, As they did eat, Meaning that when they had eaten the [Page] Paschall Lambe, then they did receiue and eate this his holie supper. Where­upon I may gather this, that it is not so vnlawfull (as some thinke) after the ta­sting and eating of some thing, to eate this blessed Sacrament. The which I speake not for that I would haue men eate and drinke and fill their bellies, be­fore they come to this holy supper, which with al reuerence and sobrietie ought in Gods feare to be receiued: but to take a­way the superstition of some, who think that if they (being in neuer such infirmi­tie and weaknes) do tast neuer so little, they be thereby vnméete and vnworthy to receiue this holy mysterie, and there­upon abstaine from it. But if we did iudge rightly, we should think, that not the receiuing into vs of a little of Gods creatures soberly with thankesgiuing, & that vpon infirmitie, doth make vs vn­méete communicants: but those things that come out of vs, euen out of our hearts, as euill thoughts, murders, Mat [...]h. 15.15. a­dulteries, formeations, theftes, false te­stimonies, slaunders are the things that defile vs, and make vs more loathsome vnto Gods maiestie, than any leprosie [Page] vnto men. These thinges make vs vn­méete gestes for such a celestiall banket, and vnworthy receiuers of this blessed Sacrament of Christs body and blood. Well saith Chrisostome: Non enim co­medisse confusionem nobis affert, In Genes. hom. 10. sed mali quippiam egisse. i. Not to eate, but to com­mit any wickednesse bringeth shame vnto vs. Therefore I exhort you to ab­staine from these and all other such fil­thie sinnes, and to come with cleare con­sciences and good hearts to this holy ta­ble. And as touching meats, I wish men to refraine from them, when they come to communicate on this sacrament, vn­lesse it be for some great infirmitie & ne­cessitie &c. Now it followeth.

Iesus tooke bread &c. Here the E­uangelist sheweth two causes of this sa­crament, the efficient & material cause. The efficient cause is Iesus Christ the sonne of God, Iohn 1.29. who is the lambe of God that taketh away the sins of the worlde, who hath made peace betweene God and vs by the blood of his Crosse, Collos. 1.20. & hath reconciled vs in the bodie of his flesh through death, 1. pet. 1.18. who hath redéemed vs from our vaine conuersation receiued [Page] by the traditions of our fathers, neither with gold nor siluer, but with his owne precious blood, who hath loued vs, hath washed away our sinnes in his blood, Apocal. 1. [...]. & made vs kings and priests vnto his fa­ther, euen this Iesus our only Sauiour & redeemer, hath ordained this holy sacra­mēt for vs & left it vnto vs, in remēbrāce of his death, & for a gage of our saluation purchased thereby. Wherefore if Iesus Christ and our saluation procured by him, be deare and pretious vnto vs: then also this sacrament, which he hath deliuered vnto vs, and instituted for vs, to confirme our faith in him, ought to be deare and precious vnto vs. Therefore we should be very carefull, that neither negligently we absent our selues from it, nor vnreuerently come vnto it, nor that we make not smal account of it: for if we vse to make great account euen of small things, which our deare friends leaue vs at the houre of their death, in remembrance of them: How much more account ought we to make of this sacra­ment, how small soeuer it séeme to the outward eye of flesh & blood, séeing that our deare redéemer Iesus Christ, euen [Page] as it were at the houre of his death be­quethed and committed it vnto vs, and hath left to be a necessary foode vnto our soules, that thereby we may dayly more and more grow vp in him. But hereof I shall haue occasion hereafter further for to speake, when I shal intreat of our dew preparation in comming to receiue this holy Sacrament. The second cause touched in these words which is the ma­teriall: is bread, and wine, as after fol­loweth, which be the outward matter and elements of this sacrament, and be holy signes of Christs blessed body of­fred, and of his pretious bloodshed for vs. And here that we may the better know the true nature and vse of sacraments, we are to vnderstand that God in offe­ring to vs our saluation purchased by Iesus Christ, vseth two things, y ^e one is his words: wherein be contained his swéete and pretious promises of mercie grounded & founded vpon Iesus Christ: the other is externall signes which wée call sacraments, & be added to the word, for seales to seale & to confirme vnto our consciences the promises of the word, & euen to set that before our eyes which [Page] the promises of gods word do sound into our eares: for we are to marke this, that both the promises of the word, and also the sacraments lead vs to one selfe same thing, that is to Iesus Christ, in him on­ly to séeke our saluation. for as the word doth this as appeareth by those places before alledged out of Iohn, 1.29. Col. 1.20. 1. Pet. 1.18. Apocal. 1.5. and in­finite such other: euen so do the sacra­ments lead vs as it were by the hand vn­to the same, & liuely set the same before our eyes. As for example: baptisme doth teach vs to the eye, that euen as water washeth away the vncleanesse of our bo­dies: so Christs pretious blood which hee shed for vs cleanseth vs from the filthi­nes and giltines of our sins. And this sa­crament of Christs supper teacheth and assureth vs, that euen as bread and wine féede, nourish, strengthē & comfort mans hart: so also Christ Iesus who offred his body and shed his blood once for al & euen for vs, féedeth, nourisheth, strengthneth, & comforteth our féeble sinful soules vn­to eternal life. And these two things, his word, & outward sacraments, God hath from the beginning vsed, therby to offer [Page] our saluation to vs, & to assure vs of his fauour. When God had created Adam & Eue, and placed them in Paradise, he did not onely by word teach and ad­monish them to serue and honour him their creator, but also he did set the trée of life in Paradise, which should set be­fore their eyes, & effectually teach them to imploy that life which they had recei­ued of God to Gods glorie. When God had brought that fearefull floud vpon the world, for the horrible corruption & wickednesse thereof, and did in mercie determine neuer in like manner to de­stroy it so againe, Gen. 9.11. he did not onely as­sure vs therof by his word and promise: but also the more to confirme it vnto vs, did set his bow in the clouds, that as of­ten as we behold the same, we should be assured of the performance of gods pro­mise, as euen to this day appeareth. When it pleased God to accept Abra­ham and his séede to mercy, he did not onely signifie the same to Abraham by making his couenant with him, Gen. [...]7. that he would be his God, and the God of his séed, and that in his séed al nations of the earth should be blessed: but also he gaue [Page] vnto him the sacramēt of Circumcision, to be a seale of this his couenant, to as­sure them that by that blessed séed Iesus Christ, he would circumcise the fore­skinne of their hearts, and cut away all their vncleanenes. And when God as it were renewed this couenāt to the Is­raelites when he brought them out of Egypt, he did not onely giue his Law vnto them, wherein his couenant was conteyned: but also ordeyned the passeo­uer, and many other sacrifices to con­firme the same vnto them, in being ho­ly figures and signes of Iesus Christ to come, vpon whom the couenant was grounded. Euen so to confirme the new testament and couenant made with vs, wherof I made mention before: Hierom. 3 [...].31. Heb. 8.8. (which is the same in substance with the olde: but called new, because it is renewed vnto vs in Iesus Christ reueiled, & ador­ned with greater graces of Gods spirit) Christ hath ordeined sacramēts in num­ber (as S. Augustine affirmeth) fewest, August. Epist. ad Ianuar. 118. in obseruation easiest, in signification most excellent, that is, Baptisme & his holy Supper. And therefore our Saui­our Christ speaking of the cuppe (as S. [Page] Luke and S. Paul report his words) saith. 1. Cor. 11.25. This cup is the new testament in my blood, that is to say a sacrament and seale of the new testament and couenant of God confirmed vnto vs in his blood. And this manner of teaching and dely­uering of things by these two kinds of things, words obiected to the eares, and outward signes to the eyes, it séemeth that we by the instinct of nature, or ra­ther of God, haue in like sort receiued. for in conueighing of things from one to an other we obserue the same order. As if a man make conueiance of lands or goods, he doth it by words and externall signes. If it be by words committed to writing for continuance, we vse to those writings wherein be contained graunts & couenants to put seales, which serue for the further ratifying & confirming of them. If a man take possession of a peece of ground, he doth it not only by vttering certaine words, but for further confir­mation thereof, he diggeth vp, and ta­keth a clod or péece of earth in his hand. If a man make a promise to do this or that, he doth it not onely by words and spéech, but for ratifying thereof giueth [Page] his hand. When a King or Quéene take vpon them the gouernement of a king­dome, they do it not onely by certaine words, but also they haue a crowne set vpon their head and a septer put in their hand, which be outward signes and to­kens of that dignitie & dominion which they receiue. And thus commonly wée deale in all other matters. Whereby we sée and plainely perceiue, that our gratious God, hauing in mercy respect to our infirmitie, & as it were humbling himself to our capacity, doth vse the like meanes in offring to vs our saluation in Iesus Christ, that we vse in these earth­ly matters and affaires, that is to wit, his word wherin be contained his swéet promises of mercy, 2. Cor. 6.16. that he will be our God, and we his people, that he will bée mercifull to our iniquities, Heb. 8 [...]0▪ 12. & neuer re­member our sins any more: & sacramēts which being outward signes & elements he doth annex vnto his word, to seale those promises & the more effectuallie to confirme them vnto our consciences. Hereby as I said we may learn the true nature and vse of Sacraments, which is to seale & confirme gods promises vn­to [Page] vs, thereby to strengthen our faith in them, and to be gages and pledges to vs of our saluation in Christ Iesus. For this cause it is said that Iesus tooke bread. It now followeth: And when he had blessed &c. The papists by bles­sing vnderstand consecrating, and by cō ­secration they meane a conuerting by the speaking of certeine wordes, of one thing into another. But this is not true consecration, but rather a magicall in­cantation. neyther can they shewe any good Latine writer, that euer vsed this Latine word Consecrare, in such sense: but it signifieth to dedicate a thing to a holy vse. And so we do consecrate the sa­crament, when by preaching gods word, rehearsing the institutiō of Iesus Christ, and calling vpon God by prayer, we do take the bread & wine from a common vse, to be a sacrament of Christs bodie and blood giuen for vs, to be a seale of Gods promises, and a pledge of our sal­uation in Christ Iesus. This is our consecration which is true consecration: as for their secreat whispering of certain words to turne one thing into another, we will none of it, we are content they [Page] vse it, which is more méete for wicked coniurers, then godly Christians: But in this place by blessing is ment nothing els but thanksgiuing, as most plainelie appeareth in the next verse: for wheras it is said that Christ taking the bread did blesse, in the verse following it is said that he taking the cuppe gaue thankes. And whereas S. Matthew & S. Marke say, that he taking the bread blessed: Matth. 26.2 [...]. Mark. 12.22. Luk. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24. S. Luke and S. Paul say that he gaue thanks. Wherby it most plainly appea­reth that blessing and thanksgiuing is al one: the which also is euident by that saying of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 14.16. when thou blessest in the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned, say Amen at thy giuing of thanks, séeing he knoweth not what thou saiest? heere it is most plaine, that which S. Paul in the for­mer part calleth blessing, in the latter he calleth thansgiuing. So that our saui­our Christ, when he blessed, gaue thanks to his heauenly father. And as our Sa­uiour did neuer tast any of Gods crea­tures, but always (as the Gospel shew­eth) he gaue thanks to God his father, to teach vs that we should walke in his [Page] steps, and whensoeuer we receiue or in­ioy any of Gods benefites, alwaies to giue God thanks for them, from whose hand & gratious goodnes we do receiue them: so here at this time no doubt but our sauiour Christ had a further respect, & giueth thāks to his father, for his great & infinite mercy to mankind, & for that great & wonderful work of our redemp­tion which he was then ready to accom­plish. Whereby we haue in like manner to learne, that as we ought to giue God most hearty thankes for all good giftes which he giueth vs, & al benefits that he bestoweth vpon vs: so when we come to this holy Supper of Iesus Christ, wée ought to consider on y ^e one side our owne mysery by sinne, how that we be of our selues childrē of wrath, enimies of gods grace, vnprofitable seruants, yea & pro­digall children, which are not worthie to be called or counted Gods children: & on the other side gods great and infinite mercy, who spared not his owne deare sonne but gaue him for vs to redéeme vs and reconcile vs to his mercy, and to be a spiritual foode to norish vs to eternall life. Of these inestimable mercies wée [Page] ought most specially when we come to this holy table to bée mindfull and to giue God most harty thanks for them. Not onely in sounding forth the praises of God with our tongues, but also in in­deuoring carefully to yéeld holy obedi­ence to God in our liues. And for this cause the godly fathers called this sacra­ment Eucharistia which doth signifie thanks giuing, for that it being a pledge of our redemption & saluation by Iesus Christ, we should when we receiue it, giue thanks vnto god for the same. The which I beséech you as at all times, so specially when yée come to this holy mi­stery diligētly for to do, Xenoph. lib. 1 [...]. The old Persi­ans condemned no sin more greatly, nor punished none more seuerely, then vn­thankfulnes. If therefore we be not sin­cerely thākful to God for his great mer­cies powred vpō vs by Iesus Christ, we shal not escape his fearefull and terrible plagues. It followeth. He brake it, and gaue it to his disciples &c. The brea­king of the bread doth set forth vnto vs the breaking of Christs body, & the pow­ring of the wine the shedding of his blood vpon the crosse for vs, for this sacrament [Page] is as it were a glasse for vs to beholde Christ crucified in, & hereunto we must apply all the holy actions vsed in the ad­ministration thereof. So the giuing of the bread and wine representeth vnto vs the giuing of Iesus Christ for vs, once vpon the crosse for our redemption, and dayly to be a spiritual food to nourish vs to eternall life. The receiuing also of the bread and wine into our bodies doth signifie & shew vnto vs our inward re­ceiuing of Iesus Christ into our hearts by faith, Ephes. 3.17. by the which he dwelleth in vs as the Apostle saith, & we be made flesh of his flesh, 5.30. and bone of his bones. More­ouer Christ did breake the bread, not to eat it all himselfe as masse priests do, Durand lib. 4. cap. 53. nor to offer one part for the soules in heauen an other for them that be aliue, and the third for the soules in purgatory as it is also their vse, but to distribute it to his disciples, that they might take and eate it. And therefore my text saith, he brake it and gaue it to his disciples saying take ye, eate ye, this is my body. Wherein we are to note that he saith not, looke vpon it, knéele and knock vnto it, and worship it, but he saith, Take ye, eat ye, [Page] promising then it shalbe his body vnto them: so that here is a commaundemēt, and also a promise. The commaunde­ment in these words: take ye, eate ye: the promise in these, This is my bodie, wherefore if we looke to be partakers of the promise, we must yeeld obedience to the commandemēt, y ^e which if we refuse to doe, we cannot looke to be partakers of y ^e promise. As for example, God saith, psal. 50.15. call vpon me in the day of thy trouble, and I will deliuer thée: if we obey the commaundement, and call vpon God in the time of our trouble, we may be as­sured of the performance of the promise that God will deliuer vs, then and in that sort, as he knoweth to be best for vs, for our God is not more liberall in promising, then he is most faithfull in performing. But if we doe not in our trouble call vpon God, we cannot looke that he should deliuer vs. Euen so here if we obey not Christes commaunde­ment, and do not take and eate it, but looke, knéele & adore it, we cannot looke that it shalbe Christs body vnto vs: for it is not further a sacrament to vs, then we according to our sauiours institution [Page] do take and eate it. No saith B. Boner? I wil easily confute that: In M. Philpots examinations. is not a capon a capon vnlesse I eat it? euen so saith he, it is a sacrament and Christs bodie al­though we doe not receiue it. I answere that B. Boner had as it appeared by his fat face, greasie belly, & by his foolish rea­soning better skil in a fat capon, then in the doctrine of diuinity, and namely of this sacrament: for a capon being a na­tural thing, is a capon, as bread is bread and wine is wine although they be not receiued: but a sacrament being a thing not of nature, but by grace, is not fur­ther a sacrament, then it is ioyned to Gods promise and institution, & applied to that vse whereunto it was ordayned. The water which flowed in the wilder­nes out of the rocke was a sacrament of Iesus Christ to the Israelits which drank of it, 1. Cor. 10.4. as Saint Paul sheweth: but whereas not onely the Israelits, but al­so their cattel did drink of the same wa­ter, was it a sacrament to the cattel? No. If one should take the water wherein a child hath bene baptised, and apply it to some common prophane vse, is it then a [Page] sacramēt? No. It is not a sacrament fur­ther then it is ioyned to Christs in [...]titu­tion and one baptised in it. Euen so the bread and wine is no further a Sacra­ment, then according to Christs institu­tion and cammaundement it is taken & eaten. Therefore to the Papists in their priuate masses not taking & eating it ac­cording to Christs commandement, but gaping & knéeling to it, & worshipping it, which he hath neuer commanded, Hierem. 7.31▪ nei­ther euer came into his heart as the pro­phet speaketh, it is not Christs body, but they commit most abhominable Idola­trie, in giuing that worship to the crea­ture which is due to Christ the Creator who is blessed for euer. But further of this their Idolatrous adoration, I will not now intreat: but come to that which followeth. This is my body in expoun­ding of which words many respecting more the outward sound of the wordes, then considering the simple sense & mea­ning of Iesus Christ, haue bene fouly deceiued, and haue hereof gathered sundrie great errors. And euen so the verie Euangelists do shew, that diuers more regarding the externall sounde of [Page] Christs words, then marking his mea­ning, haue bene greatly deceiued. As when our Sauiour Christ warned his disciples to beware of the leauen of the Pharises and Saduces, Matth. 16.6. his Disciples did thinke that he spake of outward breade, whereas his meaning was to admonish them to take heed of the sower corrupt doctrine of the Pharises and Saduces. 12. So when our Sauior said vnto the Iewes, Iohn. 2.19. destroy this temple, & in three dayes I wil raise it vp againe, they thought that Christ had spoken of the materiall temple of Ierusalem, and therfore they said, fortie and sixe yeares was this Temple a building, and wilt thou reare it vp in three dayes? But he spake of the temple of his bodie. In like maner when our Sauior Christ said to Nicodemus, Ioh. 3.3. except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdome of God. Ni­codemus taking it grosly of the outward byrth, sayd: how can a man be born that is olde? can he enter into his mothers wombe againe, & be borne? But Christ spake of spiritual regeneratiō wrought by the holy Ghost. Many such other ex­amples might be alledged, but I will [Page] content my selfe onely with that one of the Capernaits, the cosen germans, or rather deare brethren of our papists, for whereas our sauiour Christ said: Iohn. 6.51. I am y ^e liuing bread, which came downe from heauen: if any man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer: and the bread that I will giue is my flesh, which I will giue for the life of the world. They grosly vn­derstanding this of the carnal & external eating of Christs flesh, said, how can this man giue vs his flesh to eat? and againe this is an hard saying: who can heare it? 60. But Christ spake spiritually of the spi­rituall and not of carnall eating of his flesh, & therefore he saith, 63. it is the spirite that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth no­thing: the words that I speake vnto you are spirit and life. In like manner let vs in this matter take diligent héed that by too much grating vpon the letter, & re­specting the outward sound of words, & not considering Christs meaning we be not seduced and caried into errour, in grossely and carnally taking that, which Christ our sauiour spiritually & sacra­mētally did speak. Aduers. Praxca. The counsel of Ter­tullian herein is to be regarded and fol­lowed, [Page] who saith: Malo te ad sensum rei quam ad sonū vocaboli exerceas. i. I would that thou exercise thy selfe rather to the sense of the matter, thē to the sound of the word. Therefore that we may vnderstand the true sense & meaning of these words, This is my body. We are to consider, that it is no maruell, if our sauiour Christ heare speaking of a Sa­crament, do speak sacramentally, and do vse a phrase of speach vsual and common to all Sacraments, that is, to giue the outward signe the name of the thing signified. for whereas a sacrament con­sisteth of two things, an earthly and an heauēly as Irenaeus saith: Lib. 4. cap. 14. the outward element, and the thing wherof it is a sa­crament, and that there is a similitude & agréemēt betwéene these two, as name­ly in this sacramēt: for as bread & wine (as aboue I haue declared) do nourish, strengthen, & comfort mans heart & bo­dy: euen so doth Christs body and blood nourish strēgthen & comfort the soules of Gods children: by reason of this agrée­ment the name of the thing signified be­ing the heauenly, is attributed to the signe being the earthly. And this is done [Page] for good and great reason, that we in re­ceiuing this Sacrament should not set & fixe our minds vpon the earthly thing the bread and wine, but thereby be lifted vp to behold the heauenly thing, that is the body & blood of Iesus Christ giuen for vs. This doctrine the auncient Fa­thers do most plainely set downe, how straunge soeuer it séeme to y ^e fauorers of the rotten & ruinous Religion of Rome. Augustine writeth thus: August. Ep [...]st. 1 [...] ad Bo [...]facium Si enim sacra­menta quandam similitudinem &c. i. ‘If sa­craments had not a certaine similitude and likenesse of those things whereof they be sacraments, they were no sacra­ments at all. And by reason of this simi­litude they do often take the names of those things. As therefore after a cer­taine sort, the sacrament of Christes bodie is Christes bodie and the Sa­crament of Christes blood is Christs blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith. And againe, August. Le [...]. quest. [...]7. Solet autem res quae significat eius rei nomine quam significat nuncupari &c. The thing that signifieth is wont to be called by y ^e name of y ^e thing which it signifieth, as it is written, the seuen eares of corne are seuen yeares: for hée [Page] did not say, Genes. 41.26. they signifie seuen yeares? And the seuen kine be seuen yeares, and many such like. Hence commeth it that was said. The Rock was Christ, for hée said not The Rock doth signifie Christ, but as though it were that, which in truth by substance it was not, but by significatiō. In like manner doth Theo­doretus in his first Dialogue Theodoretus dialog. 1. [...] &c. Therefore our sauiour chaunged the names, [...]. & to his bodie hath giuē the name of the signe, & to the signe the name of his body. So he that called himself a vine, hath also called the signe his body. [...]. This thou hast spoken truely, but I would learne the cause of this change of the names▪ [...]. The scope & end is euident to them that be instruc­ted in diuine matters. for our Lord would that they which be partakers of the diuine misteries, should not set their minds vpon the nature of the things that are séene, but by the chaunge of the names, to beléeue the chaunge that is wrought by grace: for he that called his naturall body wheat and breade, and againe called himselfe a vine: the same hath honored the visible signes [Page] with the name and title of his bodie and blood, not chaunging nature, [...]. but adding grace vnto nature: hitherto Theodori­tus.’ In which words he flatly affirmeth that the name of the thing signified is giuen to the outward visible signe, and sheweth the cause and reason why it is so done. And that it is a vsual and com­mon phrase (as I said before) in al sacra­craments it is most plaine by many pla­ces of the scripture. Cap. 17. [...] Hoc est p [...]ctum pag. 13 [...] In Genesis God saith of Circumcision: This is my Co­uenant. And againe: My Couenant shalbe in your flesh. Here Circumcision is called the Couenant, and yet it was not the Couenant: for this was the Co­uenant, that God would be God to him, and to his seede after him &c, of this Co­uenant Circumcision was a signe and seale, as in the same place is said: yée shall circumcise the foreskinne of your flesh, Genes. 17.11. and it shalbe a signe of the Coue­nant betwéene me and you. This Cir­cumcision which was a sacrament and signe of Gods Couenant, is called the Couenant it selfe, to the end they vsing & remembring it, might be put in minde of Gods Couenant which it signified, [Page] sealed, Exod. 12.11. [...]stenim phase (i [...] est transitus) domini. and confirmed vnto them. So the Paschal lambe is called the passeouer in these words: Yée shall eate it in hast, for it is the Lords passeouer. And againe: Choose out and take ye for euery of your households a lambe, and kill the passeo­uer. So our Sauiour Christ also calleth it in this Chapter: Vers. 18. I wil kéepe the passe­ouer at thine house with my Disciples. Here yée sée that the lambe is called the passeouer: and yet the lambe properly was not the passeouer, for the passeouer, was the passing of the Angel ouer the houses of the Israelits, where the blood of the lambe was sprinckled, when he destroyed the first borne of the Egypti­ans. Now the Lambe was a sacramēt, holy signe, and pledge of this passeouer and deliuerance, and so consequentlie of that true deliuerance from eternall destruction and damnation by Iesus Christ. The sacrifices in the olde Lawe were called sinnes, because they were offred for sinne: in which sense God by the Prophet saith of the priests, they eat vp the sinnes of my people, Hose. [...].8. meaning the sacrifices which they offered for the sins of the people. So likewise Christ is cal­led [Page] sinne: He that knew no sinne, 2. Cor. 5.21. was made sinne for vs, that we should bée made the righteousnesse of God in him. The Rocke is called Christ. The Rock was Christ saith S. Paul, 1. Cor. 10.4. yet the Rock was not properly Christ but a Sacra­ment of Christ. But to come nearer to this matter. 1. Cor. 10.1 [...]. Saint Paul saith the bread which we breake, is it not the commu­nion of y ^e body of Christ? in which words he meaneth and affirmeth bread to bée the communion of the body of Christ. And yet properly bread is not the com­munion of the body of Christ, but a Sa­crament and pledge of that spirituall communiō which we haue with Christ, for as the bread receiued into our bodies is ioyned vnto vs, and made ours: so Ie­sus Christ receiued by faith into our soules is made ours: Ephes. 3.17. 1. Iohn. 1.3. Ephes. 5.30. & we haue fellow­ship with him, yea and be made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. Moreo­uer whereas Christ saith (as S. Paul recordeth) This cuppe is the new Te­stament in my blood &c. 1. Cor. 11.25. I would aske of these men that grate so earnestly vpon the letter, and vrge so eagerly [...] the word: whether the cup that is made [Page] either of siluer, gold or wood, (for by the way as Bonifacius the martyr some­time said. B. Rhenanus in Annotat. in Ter­tull. de Corona militis. In old times we had wooden Chalices and golden priests, but in these dayes we haue golden Chalices and wooden priests) be the new Testament? No, no, say they: by the cuppe is ment by a figure, the thing in the cup. Thus they that haue cried out against figures and figuratiue speeches in the sacramēt, and haue scornefully called such as haue vsed them figurators, M. Anto. Con­stantius fol 2. &c. tibi saepe. are now forced to flée to a figure, to forsake [...]. i. the ex­presse words, and by the cuppe to vnder­stand the thing contained in the cuppe. But to graunt them this, what is in the cup? wine say we, blood say they. Now to grant them this their owne assertion for disputation sake: I will aske them whether blood be the new Testament? I suppose they cānot with any forehead or face say y ^t blood is the new Testamēt, for what is the new Testament, but the new leage & couenant which God ma­keth with vs in Christ Iesus, as it is set forth in Ieremie and the Epistle to the Hebrewes in these words: Hierem. 31.31. Hebr. 8.10. This is the Testament that I will make with the house of Israel, after those dayes saith [Page] the Lord, I wil put my Lawes in their minde, and in their heart I will write them, and I wilbe their God and they shalbe my people. I wil be merciful vn­to their vnrighteousnesse, and I will re­member their sinnes and their iniqui­ties no more. This promise of mercy is the new Testament: And therfore nei­ther wine nor blood is properly the new Testament, but a Sacrament, a holy signe and seale of the new Testament, confirmed vnto vs in the blood (not of Oxen or Goats) but of Iesus Christ the sonne of God. Whereupon I thus rea­son with the Papists: as the Cuppe or that in the cuppe, is the new testament, so is the bread the body of Christ: but neither the cuppe nor the thing in the cuppe is properly the new Testament, but a holy signe and Sacrament of the new testament: So the bread is not pro­perly the body of Christ, but a holy signe, and pledge of his body offred vpon the crosse for vs. And this phrase of speach in attributing to the Sacrament the name of y ^e thing whereof it is a sacra­ment, which séemeth so rough in these fine mens mouthes: both the spirite of God in the holy scriptures, & we in our [Page] common talke vse to giue too bare & na­ked signes, which do not exhibite as sa­cramēts do the thing signified, but bare­ly signifie the same▪ as in the example before alledged by S. Augustine, Genes. 41.26. the se­uen thinne eares of corne, and the seuen leane kine are said to be seuen yeares, when as they did but onely barely sig­nifie the seuen yeares of famine which were to come. Genes. 40.11. So also Ioseph saith of the thrée branches of the vine, and of the thrée white baskets, the thrée braunches be thrée dayes, and the thrée white bas­kets be thrée dayes: 16. when they did but onely signifie the thrée dayes, wherein the butler should be restored, and the ba­ker hanged. So S. Paul calleth y ^e wiues vaile or couering of her head, 1. Cor. 11.10. her power being but a bare signe of her husbandes power ouer her, and many such other ex­amples might be alledged out of y ^e scrip­tures but these shal suffice. In our com­mon speach we vse to call bare pictures, by the names of those persons whereof they be pictures. Alluding to the pictures which hang in my lord S. Iohns great Chamber. So we say this is king Henry the seuenth, this is king Henrie y ^e eight, this is Francis the french king, this is the Lord Cromwal, and yet those [Page] pictures be not those personages, but on­ly and barely represent them. Now if we vse to speak thus of pictures, which be but bare signes of men, and do but on­ly represent the formes & shapes of thē. How much more may we so speake of this Sacrament and call it the body and blood of Christ, being not a bare signe & representation thereof, but an instru­ment of Gods grace whereby the bodie and blood of Christ is truly offered to all, and effectually receiued of the faithfull children of God, to nourish and comfort their soules. Yea moreouer the very pro­phane Poets haue vsed this phrase of spéech, as Virgil saith faliere dextras for to breake promise, where by Dextras the right hands he meaneth promises made by giuing the right hand. Iliad. 3. So Ho­mer saith: [...]. i. The Herolds brought from the citie the faithfull othes of y ^e gods, two lambs, pleasant wine, the fruite of the earth. And againe: [...]. Ibidem post. i. but the gorgeous Ha­rolds brought forth the faithful othes of the gods. In which places by the faith­ful [Page] othes, are ment the lambs and wine which they slew and powred out in con­firmation of those promises, made tou­ching the combate betwéene Menelaus and Paris, and so Eustathius vnder­standing it: expounding [...] by [...], the faithful othes, that is the sa­crifices. Where we sée that the external sacrifices, the lambes slaine and wine powred out, to confirme those othes, that they which did not performe them, might be slaine, and their blood & braines powred out as those lambes and wine were, are called the othes themselues. These places to this end only I alledge to shew vs that it should not séeme so straunge a thing, to attribute to the out­ward signe and Sacrament the name of that thing wherof it is a sacrament, and for the confirming whereof vnto vs it is ordained and vsed. But that this exposi­tion of mine or rather of God himselfe, as hath béene proued by many places and reasons out of the scripture, may plainly appeare to agrée with y ^e doctrine of the auncient and godly fathers of the Church I will set downe some places out of their bookes, to be as witnesses to [Page] giue testimony to the truth of this doc­trine. Tertullian saith, Lib. 4. aduers. Marcionem. ‘Christ professing that he did greatly couet to eat the passe­ouer as his owne (for it were vnméete that God should couet that which were an others) taking the bread and distribu­ting it to his disciples, made it his bodie saying, this is my bodie, that is to say, a figure of my bodie: but it should be no figure, vnlesse Christs bodie were a true bodie, for a vaine or void thing, such as is a ghost, cannot haue a figure. Phantasma.’ Héere Tertullian expoundeth these words. This is my body, by this that is figure of my body. And by this reason prooueth our Sauiour Christs bodie to be not spectrum or phantasma a ghost or phan­tasticall body, as Marcion that monster blasphemed, but a true body like vnto ours, because the Sacrament is a figure of it, which it could not be except it were a true body. But y ^e Papists doctrin in this point sauoreth strongly of Mar­tions blasphemie, for to say that Christs body is in heauen and earth, yea and in infinite places of y ^e earth at one instant, and that the natural real body of Christ is vnder the formes of bread and wine, [Page] without any forme, quality, or quantity of a body without breadth, length, or thicknes, what is this but to make it no true body as Martion did. And euen so S. Augustine intreating of Christs bo­die saith: Epist. 57. ad Dardanum. ‘ Nā spatia locorum tolle corpori­bus, nusquē erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, non erunt, Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit vbi sint, & ideo necesse est vt non sint. i. for take from bodies the spaces of place, & they shalbe no where: and because they be no no where, they be not at al. Take the bodies from the qua­lities of bodies there can be no place where they may be and therfore it must of necessitie be that they be not.’ But the Papists attribute neither place nor qua­litie to Christs bodie in the sacrament, & therefore by S. Augustines iudgement they make it no body, and so as I said agrée in one with that monster Marti­an. But to returne to my purpose and to shew that the fathers haue expounded those words of our sauiour Christ in that sense which I haue before declared. Augustine saith: I may expound that commaundement to be put in the signe, Lib. cont Adu­nantum Mane­che. dist. cap. 12. for our Lord did not doubt to say, ‘This [Page] is my body: when he gaue a signe of his bodie. In Psal. 3. in 1. [...]or. 11. Again he admitted him (Iudas) to the feast wherein he commended and deliuered to his disciples a figure of his bodie and blood. Ambrose saith: De iis qui initi­antur. cap. 9. In ea­ting and drinking we do signifie the bo­die and blood of Christ which were offe­red for vs. Againe, De Conse [...]ra. dist. 2. cap. Re­uera. before Consecration it is named an other kind, after Conse­cration the bodie of Christ is signified.’ The gréeke Fathers in like maner call the sacrament a signe, figure, or token of Christs body. ‘Gegory Nazianzē: Ap [...]l [...]g p [...]g. 1 [...] [...]. how dare he (which first hath not offred him­selfe a liuely sacrifice) offer to God that outward sacrifice, which is a signe or ex­ample of those great mysteries: and the like he hath in his oration vpon his sister Gorgonia. Basile saith: Pag. 56. In Can [...] [...] ­turgia. [...] he hath left vn­to vs memorials or remembrances of his passion by which commeth saluati­on, which according to his commaun­dement we propound vnto you. So Theodoritus [...] Tell me therfore, Dialog. 2. those mysticall signes which of the priests bee offered to God, of what things be they signes? [...] of the Lords bodie and blood. [...]. [...] of his true bodie or not of his true [Page] bodie or not of his true bodie? [...] of his true bodie [...]. verie wel, for an image must haue a patterne whereof it is an Image, [...]. euen as Painters also do imi­tate nature, and paint the images of those things that be séene. [...] that is true [...]. [...]. if then the diuine mysteries be signes or figures of a true bodie, the bo­die of our Lord is yet a bodie, not chan­ged into the nature of the godhead, but replenished with diuine glory. Homil. 27. [...].’ So saith Macarius: In the Church is offered bread and wine, examples of his flesh and blood. These places (that I alledge no moe) sufficiently shew that it was not straunge to the godlie fathers, to call this sacrament a signe, token, figure, and example of Christs bodie, and that they vnderstood these words, This is my bo­die, in that sense, the bread to be called Christs bodie, because it is an holie signe, example and pledge of Christs bo­die offred vpon the crosse for vs.

Now although I may seeme to haue sufficientlie spoken of the true sense and meaning of these words This is my bo­die, & withall to haue opened the true doctrine of this sacrament: yet because [Page] many men be not as yet satisfied in this point, but the popish doctrine of Tran­substantiation, and carnall presence of Christs bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine, sticketh still in their stomaks, I haue thought it very néedfull further to prosecute this matter, and more par­ticularly, and largely to confute the said errors, and to lay open the nakednesse and weaknesse of them. The false doc­trine of the Papists, concerning their Transubstantiation, which they cor­ruptly gather of those words of our Sa­uiour Christ consisteth in two speciall points, the one, in that they say, that af­ter the words of Consecration there re­maineth no substance of bread and wine but onely the outward accidences there­of, as whitenes, roundnes, &c. The other that the very naturall bodie of Christ, which was borne of the blessed virgin is there vnder the said formes of bread and wine. As touching y ^e first, that there re­maneth no substance of bread & wine. I say that this is contrary to the holy scriptures, contrary to the writings of the auncient godly fathers, contrarie to the iudgement of all our senses, contra­rie [Page] to the nature of a Sacrament, & last­ly such a doctrin as bringeth with it ma­ny absurdities. Matth. 26.29. That it is contrary to y ^e scriptures I proue it thus. Christ saith I wil drinke no more of the fruit of this vine, vntill that day, that I shall drinke it with you new in the kingdome of my father. Our Sauiour Christ heere spea­king of his supper and after his supper, calleth it the fruit of the vine, which is wine and not blood. S. Paul saieth the bread which we break is it not the com­munion of the bodie of Christ? 2. Cor. 10.16. S. Paul here not onely saith that bread is the Communion of Christs body, but also saith. Which we breake. Now what do we breake? onely accidences without a substance? that is an absurd follie: or doe we breake Christs body? as Pope Ni­colas with his counsell compelled that learned man Berengarius to affirme, D [...] Consec. dist. 2. cap. Ego Be­rengarius. but that is wicked blasphemie. There­fore it is manifest, that that which is broken is bread, and that bread bro­ken, is the communion of the bodie of Christ, that is (as I before declared) a Sacrament and pledge vnto vs of our spirituall, and yet true and effectuall [Page] communion with Christ Iesus. Againe S. Paul saith immediatly after: 1. Cor. 10.17. we that are many, are one bread, and one bodie, because we are all partakers of one Bread. Againe, as often as ye shall eate this Bread, 1. Cor. 11.26. and drinke of this cuppe yée shew the Lords death till he come. A­gaine, whosoeuer shall eate this Bread and drinke the cuppe of the Lord vn­worthely, shalbe guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord: And again, let a man therefore examine himself and so let him eate of this bread and drink of [...]his cup. Here Saint Paul fiue times call [...]th it bread euen when it is receiued and ea­ten, therfore I conclude that it is bread. But here the Papists come in with a craftie cauillation and think they haue found a fine deuise to shift off these plain words of the Apostle, they say that saint Paul calleth it bread, because it was bread, as Aarons rodde being turned in­to a serpent, Exod. 7.1 [...]. and being a serpent is cal­led a rodde: Aharons rodde deuoured their roddes. I aunswere first that they compare things vtterly vnlike: for in the Sacrament there must continue a simi­litude and agréement betwéene the signe [Page] and the thing signified, as before out of S. Augustine I declared, and therefore the substance of the signe must néeds re­maine, without which there can bée no such similitude. But in this matter there is no such agréement betwéene the rodde and serpent, but rather bee cleane contrary, and therefore the rea­son of these two are not alike. 2 Secondly I say, that because the conuersion of the rodde into a serpent was but tempo­rall, & for a short time to continue, Mo­ses had good cause to call it a rodde, be­cause thereunto it was straight wayes to be restored, and in the nature of a rod to continue. 3 Thirdly let the Papists shew that their bread is so turned into the bodie of Christ, as that rodde was into a serpent, and then they say some­thing, other wayes they proue nothing. 4 Lastly I may turne this Argument vp­on their owne heads, that as Moses cal­led the serpent a rodde, when it was not a rodde indéede but a serpent. So Christ called the bread his body, when it was not indéede naturally his bodie, but in substance bread, and by his ordinance a sacrament of his bodie. And as the Pa­pists [Page] will haue Saint Paul to call that bread, which they say is not bread: so why may not our sauiour Christ call that his bodie, which not properly but sacramentally is his body. Thus I trust this their cauillation is sufficiently con­futed & that you plainly perceiue that S. Paul calleth it bread, because it is bread. The which now. ‘ Dialog. 1 I will proue by the testimonies of the ancient fathers The­odoritus beside that plaine place before alledged, where he saith that Christ hath honored the visible signes with the title or name of his bodie & blood, not chaun­ging the nature of them, but Dialog. 2 adding grace to nature: hath a more plaine and pregnant place, whose words be these: Thou art catched in thine owne snares, for the mysticall signes after sanctifica­tion or consecration, leaue not their pro­per nature, but they remaine in their former Substance, and figure, & kind, [...] &c. and be visible and tangible as they were before, here not only Theodoritus plain words do affirme the nature and sub­stance of bread and wine to remaine af­ter consecratiō, but also the whole drift of the disputation, betwéene the true [Page] Christian, & the Eutican heretike, ten­deth to the same end.’ But if the doctrine of transubstantiation had beene then in the Church receiued, it had most fitly serued for the heretiks purpose, that as the bread after consecration, is turned into Christs body: so Christs bodie after the ascention is turned into the deitie, and so the heretike reasoneth but the true Christian answereth that he is catched in his own snare, for as bread and wine after consecration are not turned into Christs bodie and blood, but remaine in substance as they were before: so Christs bodie after his ascention is not turned into the deitie, but replenished with glo­rie and immortality.

Gelasius a Bishop of Rome writing against the same heretike Eutiches that Theodoritus did, and vsing the same reason, setteth downe the same doctrine in these words: Gelasius contra Eurichen. Certe Sacramenta &c. i. ‘Surely the sacraments of the bodie and blood of Christ, which we receiue are a diuine thing: and therefore by them wée be made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, and indeed [Page] an image and similitude of the bodie and blood of Christ is celebrated in the Acci­on of the mysteries &c. Chrisostome also writeth thus: Chrisost. ad C [...]e­sarium Mona­chum. Sicut enim antequam san­ctificetur panis &c. For as before the bread is sanctified, we call it bread, but when the diuine grace hath sanctified it, by the meanes of the priest, it is in déed deliuered from the name of bread, and is counted worthy of the name of the lords bodie, although the nature of bread doe still continue in it, and is called not two bodies but one bodie, of the son &c.’ Both the words of Gelasius, & Chrisostome, and also the drift of their discourses ten­ding to the same end that Theodoritus doth, most plainly shew, that after con­secration the substance of bread remai­neth, euen as after Christs assention the substance of his true body continueth, or else these reasons taken from the sa­crament do not only not make for them but directly against them, yea and plain­ly make for those heretikes whom they by these arguments séeke to confute. Origen also saith: Panis ille &c. Orig. in Mat [...]h. cap. 15. ‘That bread which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, according to the mate­rial [Page] substance which it hath goeth into the belly, & is cast out into the draught, but by the prayer which is ioyned to it, according to the proportion of faith is made profitable.’ By which it appeareth that it is the substance of bread and not Christs bodie (which were blasphemie to affirme) that is so cast out. ‘Cyprian saith: De vnctione Chrismatis. Dedit dominus noster &c. Our Lord at the table whereat he did parti­cipate his last feast with his disciples, gaue with his own hands bread & wine, but vpon the crosse he gaue his bodie to be wounded by the hands of the souldi­ers. August. de con­secr. dist. 2. qui mandu. Augustine also saith: Quod videtur panis est &c. That which is séene is bread, and the cuppe which our eies also do shew vnto vs &c.’ He saith it is bread, and not séemeth or appeareth to be bread. August. in psal. 98. And in another place: Spiritua­liter intelligite quod loquutus sum. Nen hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis &c. .i. Spiritually vnderstand that which I haue spoken. You shall not eate this bo­die which you sée, nor drinke that blood, which they shall shead that crucifie mée. I commend vnto you a certaine sacra­ment, which being spiritually vnderstood shall quicken you. For although it must [Page] of necessity be visiblie celebrated, yet it must inuisibly be vnderstood. Iustinus Martyr saith: Iustinus Apol. 2 [...]. Pag. 162. that the substance of the sacrament is turned into vs, and that thereby our flesh and blood is nourished. But it were a great absurdity to say that our flesh and blood is nourished of Christs bodie and blood conuerted in­to them. Therefore it is bread & wine which be turned into vs, and whereby we are nourished. By these places that I alledge no more it is as cleare as the sunne that the godly fathers did nothing at all doubt of this our doctrin, but were of this iudgement, that the substance of bread and wine remaine still in the sa­crament. Now it followeth that I shew that this doctrine of the Papists is con­trary to the nature of a sacrament, the which sufficiently appeareth, by that which is before declared, for I shewed that a sacramēt consisteth of two things an earthly and an heauenly the signe & the thing signified, and that there must be a similitude and agréement betwéene these two, or else (as I alledged out of Augustine) it can be no sacrament, Epis. 13. for as bread and wine, féede, strengthen, and comfort mans heart and bodie: so [Page] Christs bodie and blood, féed, strengthen, and comfort our soules. Now if there be no bread nor wine, then it cannot féede, strengthen, and comfort vs, and then it hath no similitude and agréement with Christs bodie and blood, and so by conse­quent (according to Augustines iudge­ment) it is no sacrament. And thus the Papists striuing through blinde igno­rance, to take bread and wine from the sacrament, do indéede take away the sa­crament it self, and so haue nothing but an Idole of their owne. Now it remai­neth that I proue it to be contrarie to y ^e iudgement of our senses, the which née­deth no proofe: for who knoweth not, that to the eie it is bread and wine, to the taste it is breade and wine, to the féeling and smelling it is breade and wine, and not the body & blood of Christ. Therefore I conclude that it is bread & wine. But here me thinke I heare some Papists exclaiming and saying, phy for shame, that you should vse such Argu­ments, to measure these mysteries by y ^e externall iudgement of our senses. I an­swere that I am nothing at al ashamed of this argument, séeing that the best di­sputer that euer was in the world, and [Page] that most mightily maintained y ^e truth, and confounded his aduersaries vsed the same, which was neither Chrisippus nor Aristotle, but Iesus Christ the son of God, for when he appeared after his resurrection to his disciples, and they were abashed & affraid, Luke. 24 37. Ioh. 20.2 [...]. supposing they had séene a spirit, he said vnto them, why are ye troubled? & wherefore do doubts arise in your hearts? 17. behold my hands & my féete: for it is I my self: Handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as yee sée me haue. Here we sée that our sauiour proueth by séeing and handling, his bodie to be no spirit, but a true bodie. The same reason doth Ter­tullian vse, against that monster Mar­tion of whom I before spake: his words be these: Hic primum manus ei iniectas animaduertens, Lib. 4. adue [...]. Martionem. necesse habeo iam de sub­stantia eius corporali prefinire, quòd non possit phantasma credi, qui contactum & quidem violentia plenum detentus & cap­tus & ad precipitium vsque protractus ad­misserit. i. I considering that heere first hands were laid vpon him (Christ) I must of necessitie determine of his Cor­porall substance, Luk. 4. that he cannot bée [Page] thought to be a spirit or ghost, who being detained, and kept, and brought euen vnto the steypie place suffered himselfe so violently to be handled, and to that purpose immediatly after alledgeth a verse of Lucretius. Tangere enim & tan­gi nisi corpus nulla potest res. i. Nothing can touch and be touched but a bodie. Therfore either our sauiour Christ and Tertullian vsed a reason that hath no reason, which I trust our aduersaries will not say, or else our reason is verie strong, that trie it by touching, séeing, & tasting and it will appeare to be bread. And so much the stronger is this reasō, for that our said aduersaries cānot shew one example in all the scriptures, where one substance by Gods mighty power being changed into an other, there was not also an outward change of the qua­lities and properties thereof, to be deser­ued by the outward senses. As when Moses rodde was chaunged into a ser­pent, Exod. 4.3. it was not onely in substance, but also in externall shew a serpent, so that Moses for feare fled from it. Exod. 7.21. When the water in Egypt was turned into blood, it was blood not onely in substance, but [Page] also in external appearance to the eye & tast, so that the Egyptians could not drinke of it. Iohn. 2.9. When our sauiour Christ had in Cana of Galile turned the water into wine, the gouernour of the feast as soone as he tasted it, perceiued it to be verie good wine. And therefore this should séeme to be very straunge, that here should be such a chaunge or tran­substantiation (as they terme it) of one thing into another, and no alteration of any outward qualities to be discerned by the iudgement of the senses. This were contrarie to Gods working in all other myracles. So that it is hereby eui­dent that this is no such myracle as they imagine, as also Augustine flatly affir­meth in his third Booke and 10. Chapt. of the Trinitie. Aug. de mirab [...] libus Script. And y ^e same Augustine writing a particuler booke of all the my­racles in the scriptures, maketh no men­tion at all hereof: by these reasons be­fore alledged it doth I trust plainely ap­peare that the substance of bread & wine in the sacrament do remaine and conti­nue: well then say the Papists it is but bread, and we may receiue it as onely a péece of bread? Nay not so, we teach and [Page] beléeue, Iustinus Apog. 2 Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 34. that it is not to compted nor re­ceiued as common bread and wine, but a sacrament of Iesus Christ, a seale of Gods promises, yea and an effectual in­strument of Gods grace, whereby Ie­sus Christ with his righteousnes and al other benefits of his passion is offred vn­to vs. And to make this matter more plaine by an example: euen as the Queenes maiesties seale ioyned to her Letters pattents, is in substance waxe stil, but yet not to be reputed as commō waxe, but to be reuerenced as her maie­sties seale, and it and the said Letters pattents to the which it is ioyned carry a power with them, and be effectual in­struments to conuey neuer so great a thing to vs, yea euen to bring vs pardon for our life, being condemned to die: euen so the promises of God and the sacraments annexed as seales thereun­to be meanes to conueigh Iesus Christ vnto vs, and with him forgiuenes of all our sinnes, and a free pardon from eter­nal death which we haue deserued. And therefore although bread and wine doe there remaine, as the substance of water doth in Baptisme (the other sacrament [Page] and seal of Gods promise) continue: yet it is very reuerently to be receiued, as a Sacramēt of Iesus Christ, and a pledge of our saluation in him. Now lastly that this doctrine of theirs draweth with it diuerse absurdities, hath partly alre­die appeared. As for to say, that they breake not the substance of breade, but either onely accidences, or Christs bo­die is an absurditie, to say that the ac­cidences do hang in the aire, without a­ny subiect, is, an absurditie: or to say that they bee in Christes bodie, is an other absurdetie. To say that there is a conuersion and chaunge of the substance, and none of the external qualities and properties is an absurdity and contrarie to all other myracles in the Scriptures as before is declared. But of other absurdities which followe this absurd doctrine of transubstantiati­on I will hereafter by Gods grace in­treate.

Now I come to the second error of the Papists, concerning the presence of the verie reall and naturall bodie of Iesus Christ, vnder those accidēces and formes of bread and wine, which I af­firme [Page] to be contrarie to the Articles of our faith, to the holy scriptures, to the sayings of the ancient fathers, and that it bringeth with it sundrie absurdities. First we beleeue and confesse in the Ar­ticles of our faith, that Christ is ascen­ded into heauē, sitteth at the right hand of God, & from thence shall come againe to iudge the quicke and the dead. Matth. 26.11. So in the scriptures our Sauiour Christ saith the poore ye shal haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies. A­gaine, I came out from the father, and came into the world: Ioh. 16.28. Againe, I leaue the world and go to the father. Also he saith, Ioh. 17.11. and now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world: Pe­ter also saith, Actes. 3.21. that the heauen must con­taine him, vntill that all things be re­stored. But here the Papists haue an o­ther shift, y ^e Christ is not here now vpon earth in that visible maner, that he was then. This is as much as if a mā should say: I wil leaue this house, I wil abide no more in this house, and yet he hideth himselfe vnder some hangings that he is not seene: doth that man say truely? or is he not therefore in the house? yea but [Page] they replie & say that our Sauiour him­selfe said. Matth. 28. Behold I am with you to the end of the world. I answere that our sa­uiour Christ by his diuine nature and godhead is with vs to preserue, direct and comfort vs: but in respect of his bo­die and humane nature which he took of the blessed virgin, he is not nowe vppon earth. And therefore our Sauiour him­self warneth vs to beware and take héed of such false Prophets as say heere is Christ, or there is Christ, Matth. 24.23. he is in the de­sert, or in secreat places, 26. and bid­deth vs beleeue them not, for (saith he) as the lightning commeth out of y ^e East and appeareth in the West, [...]7. so shall also the comming of the sonne of man be. As though he should say, my comming shal not be secreat and inuisible vnder the formes of bread and wine, but euen as the lightning is visible and terrible to the world, so shall my comming bée, which then shalbe when I shall come in maiestie, power, and glory to iudge the quicke and the dead, vpon which words S. Hierome writeth thus: Hierom. in Matth. 24. Stultum est itaque eum in paruo loco vel abscondito quae­r [...]re, qui totius mūdi lumen sit .i. It is there­fore [Page] a foolish thing to séek him in a small secreat place (such as is a pix) who is the light of the whole world. Christ there­fore in respect of his humanitie and bo­die, is not to be sought or found vpon earth. But they replie that in as much as our sauiour Christ is not onely man but also god, being Immanuel god with vs, and that these two natures being v­nited in one person, & make one Christ, therefore wheresoeuer is the one nature that is the deitie, there is the other viz. the humanitie. I answere that this fol­loweth not, for although I confesse that to be most true of the vniting of the two natures in one person: yet we must not with the heritike Eutiches confound those two natures, but acknowledge the seueral properties apperteining to them to remaine distinct, and that they are to be distinguished of vs. Iohn. 14.28. In this sense Christ said, The father is greater then I, the which is to be vnderstood in respect of his humanitie: for in respect of his dei­tie, he saith the father and I are one: and as S. Paul saith, Philip. 2.6. he thought it no rob­bery to be equal with God. Mark. 13.32. So in respect of his humanitie he confesseth himself to [Page] be ignorant of the day of iudgement, but in respect of his godhead he knoweth all things. In respect of his manhood hée was subiect to infirmities, as hunger, Matth. 4. [...]. Iohn. 4. [...]6. wearinesse, yea and vnto death. but in respect of his deitie he was subiect to none of these, but was impassible, & im­mortall: So in respect of his manhood he was contained in place, and when hée was risen, the Angel said he is risen and is not here, but in respect of his godhead, he is in all places, 1. King. 8. [...]7. the heauens of heauēs do not contein him. So I conclude that in respect of his humaine nature & bodie as when he was in earth, he was not in heauen: so now being in heauen he is not vpon earth, and therefore in respect of his humain nature he said, me ye shal not haue alwayes, I leaue the world, I am no more in the world: and in respect of his deitie he said: behold I am with you to the end of the world. And yet I confesse that we may truely say that whole Iesus Christ God and man is with vs to the end of the world, In vni­tate personae, non proprietate naturae. as S. Augustin saith, i. in vnitie of person, not in propriety of nature: for if we consider [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] perticulerly his humaine nature that is not with vs. This doctrine the ancient Fathers most plainely set forth, as Au­gustine: August. Epist. 57 ad Dardanum. Ʋna enim persona deus & homo &c. i. for he being God and man is one person, and booth is one Christ Iesus, who is euery where in that he is God, but in heauen in that he is man. Againe Ille absens est praesentia corporis, August. in Psal. 127. sed presens vigore maiestatis .i. he is absent in respect of the presens of his bodie, but present by the power of his maiesty. And again: Sursum est dominus &c. i. the Lord is a­boue, August. in Ioan. tract. 30. but also here is the Lord the truth. ‘For the body of the Lord, wherin he did rise, can be but in one place, but his truth is dispersed euery where. Againe: let good men also take this, August. in Ioan. tract. 50. and not bée carefull:’ for he spake of the presence of his bodie. for as touching his maiesty, his prouidence, his ineffable and inesti­mable grace, that is fulfilled which hée said, behold I am with you alwaies to the end of the world: ‘But touching the flesh which the word took to it, touching that, by which he was borne of the vir­gine, apprehended of the Iewes, crucifi­ed vpon wood, taken from the crosse, [Page] wrapped in clothes, laid in the sepulchre reueiled in the resurrection, ye shall not alwayes haue him with you. Why? be­cause he was conuersant with his disci­ples 40. dayes in respect of his bodely presence, & they waiting on him, seing him, but not following him, he ascended into heauen, and is not here? for he is there, sitting at the right hand of the fa­ther: and he is here, for he hath not left vs by the presence of his maiestie &c.’ Contr. faustum▪ lib. 20. cap. 11. A­gaine, Augustine saith: Christ accor­ding to his corporall presence, could not be at once in the sonne, in the moone, Lib. 1. co [...]. Eutic [...]e [...]. & vpon the crosse. ‘Vigilius a godly Bi­shoppe of Tridente and Martyr giueth most plaine witnesse to this truth, say­ing. Nam vide myraculum, vide vtrius­que proprietatis mysterium &c. for sée a myracle, sée the mysterie of the property of both the natures. The sonne of God according to his humanitie is gone from vs according to his diuinitie he said vn­to vs. Behold I am with you, alwayes to the end of the world: if he be with you, how doth he say, The day shal come when ye shall desire to sée one day of the sonne of man, & you shall not sée it. But [Page] both he is with vs, & he is not with you: for whom he hath left, and from whom he is departed in his humanitie, he hath not left nor forsaken by his deitie: for by the forme of a seruant, which he hath ta­ken from vs into heauen, he is absent from vs, but by the forme of God, which doth not depart from vs, he is present in earth with vs: so he being one and the same, is both present with vs, and ab­sent from vs. And againe the same Vi­gilius saith, Lib. 4. contr. Eutichen. Deinde si verbi & carnis &c. Moreouer if there be one nature of the word and flesh, how commeth it to passe, that the word being euerie where, the flesh is not also founde to be euerie where, for when it was in the earth, it was not in heauen: and for that now it is in heauen, it is not in earth, and in so much it is not, that according to it, wée looke for Christ to come from heauen, whom according to the word, we beléeue to be with vs in the earth. Therefore according to your doctrine, either the word is conteined in place with y ^e flesh, or the flesh is euery where with the word, seeing that one nature receiueth not in it selfe any thing con­trary [Page] and diuers.’ Hitherto Vigilius, whereby we may sée how néere the pa­pists ioine with that old heretical Abbot Eutiches condemned in the counsell of Calcidone, in confounding the proper­ties of both natures, and holding that Christs flesh and body is at one instant both in heauen and earth and in infinit places of the earth. Therfore we are not to séeke our sauiour Christ in earth, but we must be Eagles to soare vp by faith into heauen, and there to eat his flesh & drinke his blood. S. Paul exhorteth vs to seeke the things that be aboue, Colloss. 3. [...]. where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God: in which words he moueth vs to seeke the things that be there where Christ is, but Christ is aboue in heauen, therefore wée must seeke the thinges that bée aboue in heauen and not the thinges that be vppon earth. But if Christ bée vpon earth as the Papists teach, then either Paules reason is not good, or we may seeke the things that he vppon earth, which he doth in expresse words forbid vs. But I will prosecute this matter no further, onely I will lay forth certaine absurdities that follow of [Page] this grosse doctrine of Transubstantia­tion.

First, If Christs real and natural bo­dy be there vnder those formes of bread and wine as they teach, then we do with our mouthes receiue and eate the verie bodie of Christ, and drinke his blood, but this is not onely an absurditie, but also wickednesse and impietie as S. Augu­stine saith, August. lib. 3. de doct. christ. cap. 16. whose words are worthy wel to be marked and considered. He giuing rules how to vnderstand the scriptures, amōgst others giueth this for one, ‘That if the scripture seeme either to command any thing that is euill and nought, or to forbid any thing that is good and profita­ble, then it is not a proper speach, but a figuratiue. The example that he brin­geth is this. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his blood ye shall haue no life in you. He seemeth to commaund (saith he) a horrible and wicked thing. Therefore it is a figure, commaunding vs to communicate vpon the Lords passion, and sweetly and pro­fitably to hide vp in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs.’ In which words S. Augustine not one­ly [Page] condemneth, that grosse and Caper­naicall eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood, which the Papists ima­gine, but also sheweth what it is to eat his flesh and drinke his blood, euen faith­fully to beleeue and acknowledge in our hearts, that his bodie was crucified and his blood shed vpon the crosse for vs. But Pope Nicolas with the Romane coun­sell enforcing that excellent learned mā Berengarius to recant, and denie the true doctrine which he had mainteyned, caused him to confesse (as appeareth in the Popes owne decrees) the very body of Christ in truth to be handled by the priests hands, De consec. dist. 2. Ego Beringa­rius manibus sa­cerd. frangi, & fidelium denti­bus atteri. and to be broken & torne by the téeth of the faithful. The which is so absurd and grosse that the very bar­barous writer of the glosse vppon that place, giueth warning warely and wise­ly to vnderstād Beringarius words, or else we may fal into greater heresie then he held.

An other absurditie is this, y ^t if Christ naturall bodie be in the sacrament, then our sauiour Christ did eat his owne bo­dy, for that our sauiour Christ did eate the sacrament, doth appeare by these his [Page] words after supper. Verely I say vnto you, Matth. [...]6. I will not henceforth drinke anie more of the fruit of the vine &c. And as our Sauiour vouchsafed to be baptized, that he might sanctifie Baptisme vnto vs, euen so he did receiue this sacrament also, to sanctifie it vnto vs, and thereby to assure vs the more of our communion & fellowship with him. Chrisost. in Mat. Homil. 83. de Consecr. dist. 2. cap. nec Moses. Et glos. in cap. in Christo. This both Chris­ostom doth flatly affirm, and the papists themselues do not deny, but plainly con­fesse in these rude rimes without reason. Rex sedet in Coena turba cinctus dnodena. Se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse cibo. i.

The king sitting at his supper with his xii. Apostles helde himselfe in his hands, and fedde himselfe with the meat of himselfe.

Now whether this be not an absurdi­tie, that our sauiour Christ sitting with his disciples, did with his natural body, eate his naturall body, I will commit it to the conscience and iudgement of the godly to consider. And whether it must not hereof follow that he had too bodies, one an Actiue, that did eate, and another a passiue that was eaten.

3 An other absurditie hereof ensueth, [Page] that whereas the papists teach y ^e Christs body is in the sacrament, being impassi­ble, mortall, and glorified, contradicto­ries must néeds be affirmed at one instāt vpon Christs bodie: for his body where­in he sate at the table with his disciples was visible, but the body in the sacra­ment inuisible: that bodie was passible, this impassible: that subiect to death which shortly after died vpon the crosse: this not subiect to death. Now it can no more be, that Christs body at one in­stant, should be visible and inuisible, pas­sible, and impassible, subiect to death and not subiect to death: then it can be a bo­die and no body. And therefore this is a foule absurditie.

4 Moreouer for Christs body to be at one instant in heauen and earth and in­finite places of the earth, is as I haue shewed, and proued before an absurdity.

5 And that Christs bodie should bée in the Sacrament without any accidences of a body, as form, figure, lēgth, breadth, thicknesse, is as I touched before an ab­surditie.

6 This doctrine bringeth an other ab­surdity, which they maintain: that wic­ked [Page] men do eat the very body of Christ. Whereas Christ himselfe saith: Iohn. [...].54. whoso­euer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 56. hath eternall life, and I will raise him vp at the last day. And againe, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 57. dwelleth in me and I in him: hée that eateth me shal liue by me. But the wicked haue not eternall life, neither do they liue by Christ being deade in their sinnes. Therefore the wicked do not eat Christs flesh nor drink his blood. Augustine saith: August. in Ioh. tract. 26. Huius rei sacramentum id est vnitatis &c. ‘The sacrament of this thing, that is of the vnitie of Christs bo­die and blood is prepared in the Lords table, and receiued of the Lords table, in some places euery day, in some at certaine times, of some men to life, of some to destruction. But the thing it selfe wherof it is a sacrament is destruc­tion to none, but life to euery one that is partaker of it. Again the same Augu­stine saith: August. lib. 21. de imitat. Dei cap. 25. Non dicendum eum manduca­re corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi. i. we must not say that he doth eate the body of Christ, who is not in the body of Christ. And againe in the [Page] same place. Idem ibid. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris computandi sunt Christi &c. Therefore they are not to be said to eat the bodie of Christ, because they are not to be counted among the members of Christ, for not to speake of other things they cannot at one time be the members of Christ and the members of a harlot. Origene saith: Est verus cibus. i. Orig. in Matth. 15. that is the true meate, which no wicked man can eate: for if a wicked man could eat the body of Christ, it would not be wri­ten, He that eateth this bread shall liue for euer. These places I do alledge to confute not onely this absurd assertion, but also that grosse doctrine of transub­stantiation:’ for if the bread be so tran­substantiated into Christs body (then the wicked do eate Christs body: if the wicked do not eat Christs body, (as by the proofes before alledged doth plainely appeare) then is there no such transub­stantiation nor carnall presence as they vainely imagine, and falsely affirme for to be. But heere also they want not a shift, which is, that the wicked doe eate Christs flesh and drink his blood but not [Page] worthily. But I would haue them to proue that a man may eate Christs bo­die vnworthely. In déede I confesse that the wicked may vnworthely eat of this bread & drink of this cuppe of the Lords, 1. Cor. 11.27. and be guilty of the bodie and blood of Christ, as S. Paul saith, because that through infidelitie they do reiect Iesus Christ offred therby. But that the wic­ked and reprobate be either worthely or vnworthely partakers of Iesus Christ, that I do deny. Yet to proue this shame­lesse assertion see how they be not asha­med wilfully to corrupt the holy Scrip­tures.

Titul. 21. Arti. 1. de sumpt. Euch.Bunderius a lying and false Frier, is not abashed thus to alledge S. Paules place which euen now I brought forth: Multi enim indigne accipiunt de quibus ait Apostolus: Qui manducat carnem, & bibit calicem domini indigne iuditium sibi manducat & bibit. i. For many do vn­worthely receiue of whom the Apostle speaketh. He that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnwor­thely, eateth & drinketh his owne dam­nation. Heere this deceitfull Frier for panem the bread putteth carnem the flesh [Page] that whereas the Apostle saith, he that eateth this bread, and drinketh this cup &c. He maketh him to say, he that eateth the flesh and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely: wherein you sée how he altereth S. Pauls words and corrup­teth the place. But no maruell for such shamelesse assertions, and corrupt doc­trin, cannot be defended without shame lesse corrupting of the holy Scriptures. But they will say, the sense and mea­ning is all one: for he that eateth that bread, eateth Christs body. But that is the question, and therefore they vse a deceitfull Argument called petitio princi­pii, taking that for graunted which is in question and is denied: for the bread is one thing, Christs bodie an other: And although we are not to seperate Christ from the sacrament, yet we ought not to confound them, but to distinguish be­twéene them: for euen as the godly Fa­thers did teach touching the two na­tures of the deitie and humanity in our Sauiour Christ, that they are neither to be distracted a sunder and seperated, as did Nestorius, nor the properties of them to be confounded, as did Eutiches: [Page] but the said properties are to be distin­guished. Euen so are we to deale in this matter of the sacrament, concerning the signe and thing signified, that neither they are to be distracted a sunder, & de­uided: nor to be confounded [...]ogether, but to be distinguished. The sign which is the bread and wine, are things visible and corruptible which wil in short time putrifie: Iesus Christ the thing signifi­ed, is to our outward eyes inuisible and is incorruptible. The bread and wine are vpon earth: Iesus Christ is in hea­uen at the right hand of God. The bread & wine are receiued with our mouthes, broken with our téeth, and féede our bo­dies: Iesus Christ is fide digerendus saith Tertullian Tertull. de re­surrect. carnis. receiued and eaten by faith, & féedeth our soules to liue to God eter­nally: The bread and wine are receiued of all both faithfull and vnfaithfull, god­ly and wicked. Iesus Christ is onely re­ceiued of them who be faithful, Ephes. 3. in whose hearts he dwelleth by faith. They that do eate the bread and wine do die, not onely this outward death, but also ma­ny die eternally: Iohn. 9.51. but he that eateth this bread that came downe from heauen [Page] which is Iesus Christ himselfe shal liue for euer. Thus a difference is to be put betwéene the externall sacrament, and Iesus Christ of whom it is a Sacramēt. And yet we must not distract & seperate altogether Iesus Christ from the sacra­ment, but beléeue that he is truely offe­red to all, and effectually receiued of those that be gods children, and haue a true faith, which is the very mouth of the soule, whereby they eate his flesh & drinke his blood, as Christ saith: Iohn. [...].35. I am the bread of life, he that commeth to me shall neuer hunger, and he that belée­ueth in me shall neuer thirst.

Now I will onely shew briefly the vncertainty of this doctrin of Transub­stantiation, Lib. 4. dist. 11. cap. Si autem. and so I will end this dis­course. Peter Lombard the master of the sentences writeth thus: ‘ Si autem quaeri­tur qualis sit illa conuersio an formalis an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire nō sufficio: formalem tamen non esse cogno­sco quia species quae ante fuerant rema­nent. i. If it be asked what kinde of con­uersion that is, whether formal or sub­stantiall, or of any other kind I am not able to define. But yet I know, that it [Page] is not a formal conuersion, because that the formes and shewes which were be­fore do still remaine. Afterward he ad­deth: some think that it is a substantiall conuersion, saying that one substance is so cōuerted into an other substance, that the one is essentially made the other, to the which sense the fore alledged autho­rities do séeme to consent. But some do not graunt that the substance of bread, is at any time made the flesh of Christ. Others be graunt, that that which was bread or wine, after consecration is the body and blood of Christ: Some doe say thus, that that conuersion is so to be vn­derstoode, that vnder those accidences, vnder which before was the substance of bread and wine, after consecration is the substance of the body & blood:’ but others haue thought that the substance of bread and wine doe there remaine, and that there also is the body and blood of Christ. Hitherto the master of all the Popish schoolemen, whose booke of Sentences was of such credite and autority with them that it was more read & expoun­ded then the holy bible. Whereby wée may plainely sée how vncertaine this [Page] their doctrine is, and what diuers opini­ons haue bene of it. So Gabriel Byell Gab. Biell in ex­posit. Canonis Missae lect. 40. an other great scholeman writeth thus: Quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per con­uersionem alicuius in ipsum an sine conuersi­one incipiat enim corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia & accidentibus pa­nis, non inuenitur expressum in canone Bi­bliae. Ʋnde de hoc antiquitus fuerunt diuer­sae opiniones .i. ‘How the body of Christ is there, whether by conuersion of some thing into it, or without conuersion, there beginne to the body of Christ with the bread, the substance and accidences of the breade remaining still, it is not found expressed in the canon of the bible. Whereupon in old time there were diuers opinions hereof.’ And after­ward he rehearseth foure. Besides this, what if Iohn Fisher bishop of Roche­ster, a great patrone of the Pope and his doctrine, doe flatly confesse that this presence of Christs body and blood in the sacrament cannot be proued by the scrip­tures. Ioh. Roffens. Episc. in defen­tio Regiae asser­tionis cont. cap­tiuit. Babiloni­cam M. Lutheri N. 8. & O. Whose words be these, Hactenus Mattheus &c. ‘Hitherto Matthew who onely maketh mention of the new Te­stament: neither is there any word here [Page] set downe, whereby it may be prooued that in our masse, there is made a true presence of Christs bodie and blood: for although Christ made of the breade his flesh, and of the wine his blood, it doth not therefore follow, that we by vertue of any word here set downe, can doe the like, when we attempt the same. Again he saith: Non potest per vllam scripturam probari &c. It cannot be proued by any scripture, that either a layman, or priest as often as he attempteth the same, can in like manner make of bread and wine the bodie and blood of Christ, as Christ himselfe made, séeing this is not contei­ned in the scriptures. And again he con­cludeth this matter thus: Ibid. Ex iis opinor &c. By these things I suppose euery man perceiueth that the certenty of this matter depēdeth not so much of the gos­pel, as of the vse and custome, which so many ages hath bene commended vnto vs from the verie first fathers.’ Héere by the iudgement of Bishop Fisher, this doctrine of Transubstantiation and re­all presence, dependeth not so much vp­on the Gospel, as vpon custome: & that it cannot be proued by the Scriptures: [Page] whereby we may sée how vncertaine it is. So that we may say with Tertul­lian: Nihil de eo constat, Lib. de carne Christi. quia Scriptura non exhibet .i. We know nothing thereof, because the Scripture doth not shew it. And againe: Lib. de mono­gamia. Negat scriptura quod non notat .i. The scripture doth deny that, which it doth not expresse: wherefore let vs forsake this doubtful doctrine, yea this erronious, absurd and false doctrin, and let vs imbrace the truth before de­clared: let vs not séeke Christ here vp­on earth, but let vs lift vp our hearts in­to heauen, & there by faith eate Christs blessed body that was offred, and drinke his precious blood shedde vpon the crosse for vs, to feede and nourish our soules to eternal life, which is not to be done car­nally, but spiritually, yet truely and ef­fectually. Now let vs prepare our selues to come reuerently and worthely to this holy sacrament, the which that we may do: we ought as S. Paul exhorteth vs, 1. Cor. 11. to proue and examine our selues, and so to eat of this bread & drink of this cuppe for he that eateth this bread, and drin­keth this cup of the Lord vnworthely, eateth and drinketh his owne damnati­on. [Page] We are therefore, not so much to examine others, which by confessions priests did in popery, as to try our selues & to cal our selues to account before god. First we must examine our own hearts, whether we imbrace and beléeue in our hearts the true doctrine of Iesus Christ sāctified vnto vs in y ^e scriptures, & sealed with y ^e blood of Christ: & chiefly whether we rest onely vpon the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, and that we séeke our sal­uation onely in him, who is giuen of God, 1. Cor. 1.30. to be vnto vs wisedome, righteous­nes, sanctification and redemption, that he that reioyceth, may reioyce in the Lord. If we doe not vnfainedly yeld to this true doctrine, it is impossible, that we can be worthy receiuers of this Sa­crament which (as I haue declared) is ordained and giuen vnto vs to seale and confirme the said true doctrin of our sal­uation onely by Iesus Christ crucified, vnto our hearts and consciences. And therefore if any that do not beléeue with his heart, and confesse with his mouth this holy and heauenly doctrine, but be­ing still frosen in the dregges of wicked superstition and deceiuable errour, sée­king [Page] some part of saluation in mens me­rits, and in their owne works, come to receiue this holy mystery and sacramēt, they cānot worthely receiue it, but doth most wickedly abuse it. Doing in like sort, as if a man should put her Maie­sties seale, to such a writing as she neuer allowed, graunted, nor commaunded, but is directly cōtrary to her wil & plea­sure, he that so vseth her seale, abuseth her maiesty, is a traitour, and deserueth to be hanged: euen so these men belée­uing erronious and false doctrine, such as hath no warrant of Gods word, and is iniurious to the death and passion of Iesus Christ the sonne of God, whereof this Sacrament is a seale: in receiuing it doe horribly abuse it, in making it a seale of their damnable doctrine, and bée traitors to Iesus Christ: and vnlesse God in mercy graunt them repentance will hang in hell for it. Therefore such as professe popery, or any other wicked heresie, and will not reny and forsake to sinne, are not to be admitted to receiue this sacrament, Exod. 11.43. for if no stranger might receiue the passeouer: thē such as be not onely straungers, but also enemies to [Page] the trueth, are not to receiue this our passeouer, which is a sacrament of Ie­sus Christ, by whom we haue true de­liuerance from eternall destruction and damnation. They are therefore first to be instructed diligently in the truth, the which if they stubbernly withstand, they ought seuerely by the magistrate to bée punished, yea and generally al that are to be receiued to communicate of this holy sacrament are first to be catechised and instructed in the true doctrine of sal­uation, and are to be taught, what this sacrament is, to what end it was ordei­ned, and what comfort, and spirituall profit they are to receiue by it. Eod. 12.26. So God commaunded the Israelits to instruct their children in the doctrine of the passe­ouer, & to teach them the causes where­fore it was ordeined, and appointed by God. And we reade that when Iosiah did keepe that great passeouer, [...]. Paralip. 35.6. he com­maunded the Priests both to sanctifie themselues, & to prepare their brethren, that they might do according to y ^e word of the Lord by y ^e hand of Moses. There­fore both parēts ought priuatly to teach their children, & ministers should pub­likely [Page] instruct the people in all true doc­trine, and diligently prepare them, that they come worthely to the receiuing of this holy sacrament. But these things are in a manner vtterly neglected, for parents haue no care nor conscience of doing this duty which the Lord layeth vpon them, yea most be so blind and so ignorant themselues in gods truth, that they be neither able to instruct them­selues, nor to teach others. Ministers for the most part neither preach, nor Cate­chise the people, but admit al hand ouer head to this holy sacrament, where by it is greatly profaned and abused. Some thinke it ynough somtimes to preach, but they neither catechise and instruct the people in the grounds, and princi­ples of religion, nor priuatly examine & prepare them to the worthy communi­cating of this holy mysterie and sacra­ment. And therefore the people come ig­norantly and without knowledge vnto it, without the which the mind of man cannot be good as Salomon saith: Prouerb. 19.2. and so most wickedly abuse it, and kindle gods wrath against them for it: Let therfore parents do this duetie, which God laieth [Page] vpon them in teaching their children & families the true knowledge of god, and the right vse of this sacrament. Let mi­nisters both publikely preach Christs Gospel, and also perticularly catechise and instruct their people in the doctrine of saluation, and namely of this Sacra­ment, that they may reuerently & wor­thely for the strengthening of their faith & comfort of their consciences receiue it.

Moreouer euery man that commeth to the lords table must examine his own heart, whether he féele the same touched with true repentance, and an effectuall remorse for his manifold and haynous sinnes commited against Gods maiesty, for as the Israelits were with bitter herbs to eat their passeouer: Exod. 12.8. so we ought to receiue this holy sacramēt of Christs body and blood with bitter repentance for our manifold iniquities, being in­wardly pricked in conscience, that wée haue so grieuously offended our grati­ous God, in doing such wicked things as he forbiddeth, and not doing those ho­ly things that he commaundeth vs, or not doing them in that pure sincere sort that he requireth of vs.

This true repentance must bring with it, a true amendment and reformation of life, in forsaking such sins as we haue heretofore committed, and in indeuoring diligently to do those things, that wée know to be good acceptable before God our Sauiour. Iames. 5.12. He that hath ben a swea­rer must sweare no more, but let his speach be yea yea, nay nay, lest he fall into condemnation, and he must vse his tongue not to blaspheme, but to glorifie Gods name, and to praise him for his mercies euery morning renewed vnto him. Lament. 3.23. If any haue béene a prophanour of God Sabboth, a neglecter of gods ser­uice, and a contemner of his word: hée must forsake these sinnes, he must sancti­fie the Sabboth day, and consecrate it as glorious to the Lord, not doing his own wayes, nor séeking his owne will, Isai. 58.13. nor speaking a vaine word, he must careful­ly serue God with a pure conscience, earnestly loue his holy word, and hun­ger after it, as his daily foode. He that hath ben an adulterer or fornicator must flée and forsake this filthy sinne, 1. Thess. 4.4. & kéepe the vessell of his body and soule in holi­nesse and honour not in the lusts of con­cupiscence [Page] as do the Gentiles that know not God. And if any come to this holy table like a filthy dogge before he haue bewailed vnfainedly this his wicked­nesse, and if it be open, before he haue publikely shewed true tokens of his true repentance, and reconciled himself to the Church of God, he treadeth vn­der his filthy féete y ^e blood of Iesus Christ the sonne of God, and eateth and drin­keth his owne damnation. Those that haue beene dronkards, ought to forsake this beastlinesse, and liue soberly and temperately in Gods feare, or else they in comming to this sacrament prouoke Gods anger and indignation against them, and so receiue it to their destruc­tion.

But it is lamentable to sée what in­finite numbers of whoremongers adul­terers, incestious persons, drunkards, & such other filthy swine, without any signe of repentance or satisfaction to the Church of God by them offended, doe come and be receiued to the communi­cating of this holy sacrament.

Lastly we ought to examine our selues whether we liue in Christian [Page] loue and charitie one with an other without which, 1. Cor. 13.1. though we speake with the mouth of men and angels and could moue mountaines, and did giue all our goods to the poore, yea and our bodies to be burned we be nothing, and without it, we can do nothing, that may be ac­ceptable before God, as our Sauiour Christ teacheth vs in these words. If thou bring the gift or oblation to the al­ter, Matth. 5.24. and there remember that thy bro­ther hath ought against thée, leaue there thine offring before the alter, and goe thy way: first be reconciled to thy bro­ther, and then come and offer thy gift. Our Sauiour Christ here speaking of the alter and oblations that were in the old law, doth teach vs, that we can do nothing acceptable to God, vnlesse w [...] be truely reconciled to our brethren, and do sincerely loue them, euen as we desire God in Iesus Christ to loue vs. Therefore if we liue not in true bro­therly loue and charitie one with ano­ther, we cannot come worthely to this holy supper of our Lord Iesus Christ: for it is a sacrament of vnitie as Saint Paul saith, we that are many, 1. Cor. 10.17. are one [Page] bread & one body, because we al are per­takers of one bread. For euen as we al eate of one bread, and drinke of one cup, so we declare and acknowledge thereby that we be all one in Christ Iesus, all members of one mysticall body, and all lynked together in brotherly loue one with another. And as the bread is made of many graines knoden togither, euen so we ought all to be knit together in a holy profession of one truth, and in bro­therly sincere loue one to another, which must bring forth her fruits in humbling our selues one to another in the feare of God, in helping, comforting and relée­uing one another &c. But lamentable it is to sée how cold Christian charitie is waxen, and how rare it is among men. Al men séeke themselues, and their own priuat profit, and not the good and be­nefite of their brethren: we dispise and disdaine one another: we séeke to exalt and aduance our selues one aboue an o­ther: by vsury, bribery, extorsion, and oppression we pinch, bite, yea and de­uour one an other. If these be our fruits, if thus we leade our liues, and yet come to communicate on this holy sacramēt, [Page] we prouoke gods fearefull vengeance a­gainst vs, fearefully for to plague vs. So Paul sheweth, that for the abusing of this sacrament at Corinth, 1. Cor. 11.30. God had so striken them, that many were dead, and many weak and sicke among them. And whē I consider how horribly this holy Sacrament is abused among vs, how this pearle is cast before swine, and ministred to all, without making any difference betwéene the cleane and vn­cleane, how ignorantly, vnreuerently and profanely it is receiued, I cannot but stand in terrour and horrour of gods fearefull plagues to come vpon vs, euen to the depriuing vs, of the word of life, the Gospel of our saluation, and of this pretious pledge of our Redemption by Iesus Christ. Let vs therefore deare brethren, iudge our selues, that we bee not iudged of the Lord our God, but let vs humble our selues vnder his mighty hand, let vs truely turne vnto him by vnfeined repentance, and amendment of life. Let vs with all reuerence come to this holy feast, vnfeinedly confessing our sinnes with an inward féeling of them, & remorse of conscience for them, [Page] & truly trusting in gods mercy through Iesus Christ, who came into this world to saue vs sinners: 1. Tim. 1.15. 2. Cor. 8.9. Philip. 2.7. who became poore to inrich vs: tooke vpon him the shape of a seruant to purchase eternal fréedome, and libertie to vs: submitted himself to shame, Gal. 3.13.15. to procure euerlasting glorie to vs: tooke vpon him the curse, to obtaine the blessing of God for vs: finally suffe­red death to giue eternall life vnto vs. Thus when we come to receiue this sa­crament, let vs thus declare the death of our Lord Iesus Christ, & acknowledge with heart and mouth, that the life wée now liue in the flesh, Gal. 2.20. we liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who hath loued vs, and giuen himselfe for vs. This is our worthy receiuing of this holy mysterie, euen effectually from our hearts to con­fesse our owne vnworthinesse, and ear­nestly to hunger for the righteousnesse of Iesus Christ, which onely is able to discharge our vnrighteousnesse. If there­fore we do vnfainedly confesse, our vn­worthinesse and wickednesse, and (not with a perfect faith, which no where is to be found, and which if we had, wée should haue no such néede of this sacra­ment, [Page] which is ordeyned to strengthen our faith and to be as it were a prop to vphold it) but with an vnfaigned faith (as the Apostle termeth it) come vnto Christ Iesus, 1. Tim. 1.5. lay our sins vpon him, be­léeue that he hath made peace by y ^e blood of his crosse, Coloss. 1.20. & that by his stripes we be healed, if we do truly amend our sin­full liues, 1. Pet. 2.24. 2. Pet. 1.4. féeling the corruption that is in the world through lust, and purelie serue God with good consciences. And finally do reconcile our selues one to an other, and liue in brotherly loue and Christian charitie one with an other: in comming to this sacrament, we shall not onely licke the rocke, but also sucke the hony and Oile out of the same as S. Cyprian saith: Serm. de Caen [...] Domini. we shall not onely eate Panem domini, the bread of the Lord as Iudas did: August. in I [...]hn tract. 59. but also Panem Do­minum, that bread which is the Lord, as the other disciples of our sauiour Christ did: we shall not onely receiue these vi­sible elements of bread and wine, but also we shal eat Christs flesh and drinke his blood, Iohn. 6.56. he shall dwell in vs and we in him, and shall hereby more and more grow vp in him, and be more and more [Page] assured of our saluation in him. These things the father of all mercie worke in vs, and continually increase in vs, to his owne glorie, and our eternall com­fort and saluation through Iesus Christ our onely sauiour & redéemer, to whom with the Father & the holy Ghost, be all praise, laud, and glorie now and for euer Amen.