Questions of religion cast abroad in Helvetia by the aduersaries of the same: and aunswered by M. H. Bullinger of Zurick: reduced into .17. common places. Translated into Englishe by Iohn Coxe. 1572

The .xj. Common place. Of the sacrament of the bo∣dy and bloud of our Lorde, and of the receyuing vn∣der bothe kindes.

The .lx. Question.

Whether they beleeue that the liuing body and the very bloude of Christe, be substantially in the Sacramente, so that after the words of cōsecration, the bread is transubstantiated into the bo∣dy of Christ, so as there then re∣maineth no more bread, but the true & naturall body of Christe?

The Answere.

CErtayne of the later Do∣ctors* 1.1 of the Romish church. do euidently, and fréely con∣fesse that before the councel of Lateran. whych was celebrated at

Rome, Innocentius the third, thē Pope in the yéere of our Lord. 121, (in y^e which Synode the doctrine of transubstantia∣on was first decréed & confirmed) there were diuers and sundry opinions in the churche touching the presence and sub∣stance of Christe in the Sacramente. So that if any man did not beleue that the substance of bread was turned into the substance of Christes body, yet was he not reckened for an hereticke. But in this councell it is decreed, y^t all those which will auoide the suspition of here∣••ie, muste beléeue that the very body of Christ is naturally in the Sacrament. and it is greatly to be wondred at, wherfore this councell would cōdemne the faithfull as hereticks: for that which hither vnto for the space of. 1200, yeeres, was neuer done nor ment. Whereby lette any wise man thinke, whether the councell had authoritie now after. 1••00. yéeres to Decrée these things. For if those menne which liued from Christe 1200. yéeres, were not coūted heretikes, and yet did not beleue that the substāce of breade was chaunged into the sub∣staunce

of Christes body, whye then shoulde they now be called Heretickes, which beleeue not those things whiche the Churche neuer beléeued in all that space of yéeres before said? But if those things which that councell now holden 1200. yéeres after Christ, were true and necessary to be beléeued, then all those which liued before this time, and belée∣ued not these things, did not beléeue a righte: but if their faithe were true (as vndoutedly it was) then is it not neces∣sary for vs to beléeue that, which after were deuised and imagined.

And truely the auncient fathers did* 1.2 thus beléeue and teache concerning this holy Sacrament: to witte, that there is two things chéefely to be considered: the signes: that is, the bread and the wine: the things signified, that is, the body & bloud of Christe. But if it be true which the churche of Rome teacheth, that the substaunce of bread is not in the sacra∣ment, but only the body of Christ, then surely, the Sacrament is no more a sa∣crament, but onely the thing signified. And is not this their definition of a sa∣crament?

A Sacrament is the signe of an holy thing? If therefore the breade be no breade, neither kéepeth hys sub∣stance, but in the place therof commeth the substaunce of Christes body, I pray yée then, what is that they doe breake in the sacrament? Is it the body of Christ, or what other thing else? For it is no breade, for they say there is no breade in the Sacrament. Therefore if the bo∣dy of Christe be present onely, then is the same broken, which thing cannot ••e. Neyther is it any more a Sacra∣mente, for it is not the signe of an holy thing, but the very holy thing it selfe. Then was there no nede that the Lord should haue giuen breade and wine in ••ys laste Supper. But if it be as they were woonte to say, that the fourme and accidentes of the breade, as the ••hytenesse, coloure, roundenesse and ••aste, be the signes & the things that are ••roken, then doe we demaunde of them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what substaunce the whitenesse, ••oundnesse and taste doth abide? They ••••nne not say I trow, that they are the accidentes of Christes bodye, or that

they rest in his substaunce, and there∣fore it necessarily followeth, that they remaine in the breade. And therefore the substaunce of the breade in this Sa∣cramente, is not chaunged but remay∣neth, and so theyr Doctrine hathe no good foundation. Yea these woordes al¦so, Substance, Accident, forme, and ac∣cident vvithout substaunce, dothe suffi∣ciently declare that this their doctrine, was forged from the deuises of subtil•• Sophisters and their craft, whereof the Apostles were altogither ignorante. But nowe, when they are at a sopp•• game, then say they, these things a•••• altogyther done miraculously by the omnipotent diuine power of God: b•••• yet they cannot proue that, and there 〈…〉〈…〉 no cause so false, but that it may be de∣fended by this kinde of reason. In th•• gospell and wrytings of the Apostles oftentimes this Sacrament is plaine•• called breade and wine, & that without dout is in respecte of the signes, that might thereby manifestly appeare, that the substaunce of bread and wine doth•• remaine in the sacrament, which thi••

also we perceiue and fast, when we re∣ceiue the same, although the Papists go about to persuade vs the contrary.

Neither by this dothe it folowe, that* 1.3 be acknowledge and receiue in this sa∣crament, nothing else but bread & wine only, as in other bankettes, where oure body is fed. For our Lord whē he gaue 〈…〉〈…〉 his supper, the bread and the cup vn∣•••• his disciples, commaunding them to ••ate and to drinke, he added: This is my body, this is my bloude. And it is to be ••oted, that it is an vsuall thing, to geue ••••to the sacramētall signes, the names 〈…〉〈…〉 those things, which they doe signifie▪ 〈…〉〈…〉s in this sacrament, the bread & wine 〈…〉〈…〉e the signes of the body and bloude of Christ, and therfore Christ nameth thē is body & bloud. The like is to be said Baptisme, Circumcision, the Passeo∣er and other Sacrifices. And they are ••us called, to the ende we shoulde not ••pende vpon the signes, that is, on the ••reade or on the Wine, but being by ••ese visible things putte in mynde of ••ings inuisible, we might lifte vp our ••es vnto heauen to the things signifi∣ed,

and that is to the bodye of Christ which was geuen for vs, & to his blo•••• which was shed for vs, and so study 〈…〉〈…〉 receiue these.

But howe, or in what manner d•••• we receiue the body and blud of Christ* 1.4 Truely, spiritually by Faithe, so 〈…〉〈…〉 outwardly with oure bodely mouth•••• we eate and drinke the Lordes breade•• and the Lordes wine, the holy signe•••• and inwardly with the mouthe of ou•• soule, that is to say by faith, we recey•••• the bodye and bloude of Christe. F•••• like, as with oure mouthe, we recei•••• meats to sustaine our body, so likewis•• by Faithe in Christe, is his bodye and bloud, which he offered on the Crosse made meate vnto vs, to eternall life▪ For the body of Christe which was 〈…〉〈…〉∣uen for vs, and his bloud that was sh•••• for vs, is our lyfe, or lyfe is therby pur∣chased to vs, and these do we receiue b•• faithe, so as thereby Christe dothe li•••• in vs, and we in him. Wherfore in th•• holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christe▪ we do not eate bread, and drinke win•• onely, but his body and bloude also: bu••

yet in suche sorte as before I haue said, spiritually by faithe, so as the presence of Christe in this supper, is spirituall, is the eating therof also is. For the bo∣dy of Christe, which is, and remaineth 〈…〉〈…〉 heauen, euen vnto the laste day, is a ••aturall body, subiecte to a place, and ••s therefore in heauen ouer vs, and can ••n no wise, bodely or fleshly, be in di∣••ers places at once vppon this earthe, ••r be carnally eaten. And therefore in the celebrating of this Supper, they haue alwayes sayd: Lift vp your harts. and therefore the aunciente wryters haue alwayes, in interpreatyng the ••oordes of Christe touching the eating and drinking of his body and bloud, ex∣••ounded the same to be done spiritual∣ly by faithe, bicause the fleshe profiteth not, as in the sixth Chapter of John: and therefore they haue interpreated these ••oords of Christ: This is my body, This is my bloud, thus: It so signifieth, or it is the signe or Sacrament, or token of my body and bloud. For euen immediatly after y^e forsaid words, our Lord himself ••aith: Do this in the remembrāce of me.

And Paule saith, shevv you the Lordes death vntill he come, to witte, to iudge∣ment. Wherefore to this Question we Answere: that the naturall body and true bloude of Christe is in heauen, as touching the substance, and that in the supper, or in the bread and wine (which two retaine their propre substaunces) they are Sacramentally or spiritually present, not substancially or bodily. For the bread and wine are the true Sacra∣ments or signes of the bodye and bloud of Christe, which being once offered on the Crosse▪ are now abiding in heauen, and are spiritullay by faithe receiued of vs vnto eternall life. But some not be∣ing* 1.5 concente with this plaine expositi∣on, obiecte, that in oure dayes there is great strife aboute the sacrament, some teaching that Christ must be eaten spi∣ritually, other some saying that it ought to be carnally &c. And these men we hartely beseeche, that they woulde dili∣gently marke those, which thus so ear∣nestly holde, that the breade it selfe, or that vnder the breade or formes there∣of the very body of Christe is presente,

and corporally to be eaten: for after they haue contentiously tossed them¦selues and others herein, yet at the last they come to this poynt, that they con∣fesse this not to be done so grosly or car∣nally, bicause the whole matter is hea∣uenly, Sacramentall and Spirituall. Wherefore if this be true, why then yéeide they not here vnto, and ceasse hencefoorth to bée contentiouse, and to perswade this thing to bée carnally spirituall, and that the substaunce of bread no longer remayneth. &c. Wher∣by neither them selues, nor yet others can tell what they meane. Let the aun∣cient doctrine of Chrystes Churche re∣mayne, which alwayes beléeued that Chryste had a true naturall body, and that glorified in hys resurrection, yet still remayning a true naturall bo∣dy (euen suche as our bodies shall bée at the last day) and that with this bo∣dy he ascended into heauen, there re∣mayneth, and shall from thence come to iudge bothe the quicke and the dead. And that yet neuerthelesse he is present spiritually in the Sacramente of the

supper, and so receiued of the faythfull spiritually, and not carnally, vnto eter∣nall life. This is the auncient & playne Apostolical truth, to whiche not onely thou mayest yeelde thy selfe, but also know what thou beléeuest. Wherfore if thou goo foorth any further to séeke, to contende or to quarel, then must we let thee alone, that euen through thine own default, thou maiest al thy life long re∣mayne and continue a most miserable man. &c.

The. xlj. Question.

Whether they do beleeue that Christ being present in the Sa∣crament, is to be worshipped, whē the same is eleuated or lift vp by the priest, giuē vnto other, caried to the sicke, or is other∣wise shewed or caried about?

The Answere.

TOuching the presence of* 1.6 Chryst, we haue answered in the former question: but if any man bée not suffici∣ently answered therwith, let him heare

the answere of S. Augustine vpon the words of Chryst Trac••. in ••oan 50 The poore shall you haue alwayes with you, but me shall ye not haue alwayes Thus he wryteth: Accordyng to that sub∣stance, after which he was borne of the Virgin, taken of the Iewes, nayled on the Crosse, and appeared manyfestly in the resurrection, according to that substance you shal not haue me alwaies with you. VVherefore he was conuer∣saunt bodily fortie dayes with hys disci∣ples, and after ascended into heauen, and is not nowe héere on earth. For there he sitteth on the righte hande of his fa∣ther, & yet is here also: for the presence of his Maiestie did not depart. Therfore according to the presence of his maiesty we haue Chryst always present, but as touching the presēce of his humane bo∣dy, we haue it not. For the Church had him present but a few dais, yet faith ap∣prehēdeth him, though our eyes see him not. And this is S. Augustines doctrine. Touching the worshipping of Chryste, we beléeue he oughte to be worshipped in what place so euer he bee, in bodie.

For whylest he was héere on earth the Apostles and others dyd worship him here: and after he ascended into hea∣uē, they worshipped him there. Luk. 24. Wherfore sithe we haue already suffi∣ciently declared, that Chryst is not bo∣dily presente in the earthe vnder the fourme of bread, but is in heauen, ther∣fore is he to be worshipped in heauen, sitting on the right hande of God, and not vnder the fourme of breade. Fur∣thermore touching the worshipping of the Sacrament, we haue neither com∣maundement from God, nor example of the Apostles. For the Lorde sayth: Take yée, eate yee, and not shew it, and worship it. Neither dyd the Apostles kéepe this Sacrament and shut it in a Boxe, carrie it to the sicke, or in proces∣sion, or dedicate any festiuall day vnto it, no more than they did to Baptisme, which notwithstanding is an holy Sa∣crament, giuen in the name of the bles∣sed Trinitie, the father, the sonne, and the holy ghost. And wée truely do wor∣ship rightly the holy Trinitie, and yet not in Baptisme. Laste of all it is eui∣dent

by Histories, that. 1200. yeres, and somewhat more after Chryste, the in∣uention and buylding of Chappels to the Sacraments, and feastes, and cary∣ing of the same aboute on procession, was inuented and ordeyned onely by men cleane contrary to the worde of God. Dan. 11. and Math. 24.

The. xlij. Question.

Whether those Priests which are not consecrated, suche as a greate many bee amongest the gospellers, haue power to make of bread and wine, the true bo∣dy and bloud of Chryst?

The Answere.

SAinct John in his Gos∣pell* 1.7 biddeth men to at∣tribute no more vnto them selues, than they haue receiued frō aboue. Therfore tell vs where the professors of the Gospell did at any tyme take vppon them authoritie or

power, to make of bread and wyne the body and bloude of Chryste? No they neuer receyued any suche authoritie from God. But wee are not ignoraunt what the Churche of Rome teacheth of thys matter, and howe those whiche are cōsecrated by that church, & of their Byshops, into priests, shorne & anoyn∣ted with oile, haue these words by their Bishops pronoūced ouer them: O Lord voutchsafe to consecrate and sanctifye these handes by this Oyntmente, and through our blessing, that what soeuer they blesse, may be blessed, and what so euer they consecrate or hallow, may be consecrated or halowed. &c. And again: Receiue thou power to offer sacrifice to God, and to say Masse aswell for the li∣uing, as for the dead. &c. But we besech them of their curtesie to tell vs who gaue them this authoritie or power? Did they receiue it of Chryst? If they did, then let them tell vs where, and wyth what wordes he commaunded them to doo it? But had the Apostles trowe youe thys power, and gaue the same in lyke manner to others, and

so after thys sorte dydde consecrate and ordeyne Ministers in the Churche? For the thyng it selfe whereof they speake, is very greate, and the power and authoritie suche and so wonder∣full, that it is Diuine. Wherefore it is necessarie, that they shewe some commaundement or ordynaunce of the worde of GOD, to ratifie this their ordynaunce, consecration, and power. But as touchyng any one of these ••hynges, it is vndoubted true, that they haue no manner of commaunde∣mente, nor sufficiente warraunt from the woorde of God. And therefore wée may not allowe or ratifye their ordy∣••ance. In déede there are certaine thin∣••es written in the old Testament tou∣••hing the annoynting of Priestes, but ••ll men know that the Leuitical priest∣••ood with all his ceremonies was abro∣••ated, and so detested of God, and for∣••idden to be renued in the Churche of Christ. We know y^t the Apostles did in ••••e making or ordring of ministers vse ••nely prayers and putting on of their ••••ds. And in the new Testament there

is no mention made, no not a worde of this Romish custome touching the con∣secration and offering of sacrifices in the Masse. Neither did our Lorde say, I giue you this power, to pronounce the wordes of consecration ouer the bread and wyne, and of the same to make the true body and bloud of Chryste: But he sayde: Take and eate, this is my bo¦dy: Take and drinke yee all of this, this is my bloud. Besides this there are di∣uers opinions amongst the Doctors of this Romishe Churche wyth what wordes our Lorde dyd consecrate. And the Apostles did not vse this fourme of consecration which the Romish church vseth. But in the reformed Churches* 1.8 of the Gospell the Ministers are ordei∣ned by election, and by laying on of hands, and the prayers of the congre∣gation, according to the doctryne of Chryste and his Apostles. And therfore we doo not put the efficacie or force of the Sacraments in the power, déedes, or wordes of the Ministers, but in god, hys institution, power, and worde. And bycause God hathe commaunded that

Baptisme and the Lords supper should be administred by them, we stedfastly beléeue, that when the minister doth re∣cite the wordes and institution of the Lorde, and the Congregation doo re∣uerently obey the worde and ordy∣naunce of God, that then the Lorde him selfe is present, at hys institution and ordynaunce, making the same ef∣fectuall by his holy spirite, which thing the faythfull doo chiefly regarde. And hereof we haue else where more large∣ly written.

The. xliij. Question.

Whether there be not as much comprehended vnder the Ele∣mente of Breade, as vnder the two Elementes of Breade and Wyne, so that Chryste whol∣ly may bee conteyned vnder the one Elemente of the Sacra∣mente, and that therefore the whole body of Chryste may bee giuen to the lay men vnder one kinde onely?

The Answere.

THere is no néede of* 1.9 these subtyle questions. But gyue you vnto the faythful rather the same whyche Chryste ordey∣ned and appoynted for them. For wée know that the true and lyuely body of Chryste is not without bloud, but that they are ioyned togither, neither was christ ignorāt hereof, & yet neuerthelesse he dyd not institute this Sacrament in the forme of bread only but also of wyne. But if this Sacra∣ment béeing receiued vnder one kinde bée sufficient for the lay people vnto sal∣uation, for that therein is the whole bo∣die of Chryste: then also why shoulde not whole Chryst be sufficient for your* 1.10 Priestes and then so to receiue but the one halfe of the Sacrament? But by this their Question and doing, the in∣stitution of Chryste is broughte into doubte. But the Lorde hymselfe tea∣cheth, that this is the manner of them which defende and set vppe the ordy∣naúnces of men: for throughe these

their traditions the commaundements and ordynaunces of God are violated and broken. Mat. 15.

The xliiij. Question.

Whether they beleeue that Chryste dyd celebrate his Sup∣per wyth the Apostles onely, and that the Lay men dyd not thus receyue both kindes?

The Answere.

IF the Apostles, (as an* 1.11 example for Priests on∣ly) dyd alone receyue the Sacramente of the Lordes Supper: then by good reason wée de∣maunde of you by what power, or by whose commaundemente the Priestes doo not onely not delyuer the Cuppe, but why also they gyue the breade, or why they doo admitte women to the Lords supper, sith they also being num∣bred amongst lay men, were not pre∣sent in the first institution of the same? If therefore the lay men oughte not to receiue the Cuppe of Chrystes bloud,

bycause they were not at Chrystes last Supper, and that it belongeth to the Priestes, bycause they were there, it must néedes follow that the whole Sa∣crament belongeth only to the priests, and that neither the one nor the other kinde of the Sacrament oughte to bée giuen to the laitie. For the Priests doo very ill, and without al authoritie giue those things to the laytie which Christ gaue onely to them selues. But this is a detestable saying. But the doctrine of the Gospel and of the Apostles is farre better and fuller of comfort, which tea∣cheth, that Chryst our Lorde in his last supper spake of the redemption of all mankinde, which he should obteine by his body giuen on the crosse, and by the shedding of his bloud. And therfore he most playnly and euidently sayth: This* 1.12 is my body which is giuen for you: This is my bloud which is shed for you, and for many for the remission of sinnes. Wherfore sithe the body and bloude of Chryst are the onely saluation, foode, & drinke of all the faythfull, whether they bée Priestes Ministers of the

Church, women, men, laye people, or of what name or condition soeuer they bée: it then followeth, that the whole supper of the Lorde as well the cuppe as the bread, is frée for all men. But if the Sacramentes appertayne not vnto them, then haue they no parte of the body and bloud of Chryst. But the Lorde playnely and distinctly saythe: Drinke you all of this: and Marke ad∣deth saying, and they al dr••nk. Further∣more Paule sayth: That which he re∣ceiued of the Lorde, he gaue to the Church or congregation (and this not to the Priestes or Ministers onely) but to all the Corinthians. And it may bée proued by seuen sufficient testimonies out of the tenth and eleuenth Chapters of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, that he gaue bothe kindes, that is to say, bread and wyne to all the faythe∣full, as well women as men, laymen as Priestes. And therefore it can not bée denyed but that he receyued thys from the Lorde to delyuer the Sacra∣ment to the faythfull. Therefore it fol∣loweth that in Chrystes laste supper

the Apostles were not onely an ex∣ample of the Priestes, but also of all other faythfull. And the Lorde gaue not a peculiar or proper Sacrament to the Priestes, and an other to the lay men: but he instituted one holy Sacra∣ment to be giuen as wel to the lay men as to the Priests. For neither dothe the Priest receiue or doo more than the lay man, sauing onely that when he mini∣streth the Sacrament, he executeth the office of a minister, and deliuereth the same vnto others. And herein dothe the Romish churche greatly offende, that the Sacrament which is instituted of our Lorde to bee a Sacramente of vni∣tie, by whiche the faythfull might bée coupled into one body, they applye the same to defende their separation, po∣wer, and pryde, whereby they séeke to excell others, and to bée taken for gods, whome aboue all others wée ought to preferre with worship and honor. Of these matters hath Gabriell Biell vpon the Canon of the Masse, Lect. 4. writ∣ten very straunge & wonderful things, extolling the Priestes aboue the virgin

Mary the mother of Chryst, aboue all the Angels and Sainctes, and aboue things both in heauen and in earth.

The. xlv. Question.

Whether they do beleeue that Chryste wyth the two Disci∣ples in Emaus, and the Apo∣stles. Act. ij. and Paule. Act. xx. and. j. Cor. xj. vsed but one kinde onely, and gaue the bread onely to the lay people?

The Answere.

THat Chryste sitting at the* 1.13 Table with his two Dis∣ciples at Emaus, brake breade, doth not proue that the lay men oughte onely to be parta∣kers but of the one halfe of the Sacra∣ment. Neither yet can they proue that this supper was a commemoration of y^t mysticall supper which he celebrated with his Disciples a lyttle before hys

death. But yet if it were, neuerthelesse it coulde proue nothing, bycause it is an Historie of one singular facte contrary to a manyfest commaundement. For in the Gospell it is playnely set foorth, howe the Lordes supper oughte to b〈…〉〈…〉 administred, to wytte, with breade a〈…〉〈…〉 wyne. Wherfore sith this déede wher∣of Luke speaketh Chap. 24. agréeth no•• with the institution of our Lords sup∣per, it maketh nothing agaynst the first institution thereof Yea it may be also that one kinde is named, and the other vnderstanded by the figure Sinecdoch•• Agayne they can not proue that Cleo∣phas and his cōpanion were lay men. Wherefore if they were Disciples▪ Priests or Ministers, and chosen of our Lorde to preach the word, as it séemest moste lyke to bée, then this example can proue nothing. In the Actes of the Apostles the Lordes Supper is calle•• the breaking of bread, as spoken in the respecte of one parte, and yet thereby can they not conclude, that they had no•• the vse of the cuppe, sithe our Lorde did institute the same.

The. xlvj. Question.

Whether the Corinthiās which vsed both kindes, did not great∣ly offende when they vsed the Wine, and that Paule therfore wryteth vnto them, saying, that when he commeth, he will bet∣ter instructe them.

The Answere.

THe woords of S. Paul ma∣nifestly* 1.14 teach that the Co∣rinthians did amisse in o∣ther matters, & not in that they receiued the Sacra∣ment in bothe the kindes. For the Apo∣stle plainly sayth, that he receiued both kindes of the Lord, that he might so de∣liuer the same vnto them, and therfore he willeth them to receiue it: and the woords of S. Paule. 1. Corin. 11. chapter, geue testimonie héereunto, to y^e which place I remit those that wil read them. I pray you then howe coulde he wryte, that when he came, he would better in∣structe

them, that is to say, teache them otherwise, than, he had done before out of the woords of Christ? And truely it is to be wondred at, that they dare bring forthe this Question, as in the name of Paule, which is in deede so plaine a∣gainst Paul. Wherfore I might in this place more sharply dispute against thē, but that my purpose is rather, to lay the plaine truth euidently to the eyes of the godly and faithfull, than rigorously ac∣cording to their desertes, to answere or reproue our aduersaries. And therfore I leaue this vnto others, & as I haue begon so will I procéede & answer their questions: hoping hereafter to haue oc∣casion to speake more hereof, and there∣fore I wil not nowe saye all, reseruing something to a more conuenient tyme.

The xlvij. Question.

Whether they beleue that in the Councels holden at Constā∣tinople & at Basil for the auoy∣ding of many dāgers & striues, it was godly and wel decreed,

that according to the doctrine of the Christian Churche, the lay men should haue onely the one kinde of the sacrament?

The Answere.

YT plainly appeareth by the* 1.15 thirtéenthe Session of the Councell holden at Con∣stance, that the fathers then confessed that Christe did ordayne the Sacramentes vnder bothe kindes, and so gaue it vnto his Disciples, and so likewise did the primitiue churche also vse the same. Wherfore if this be true, as it can not otherwise be, then I leaue it to the iudgement of any good Christi∣an, whether that the councell of Con∣stance, which was holden. 1400. yéeres after Christe, or the councell of Basill, which was celebrated since, or any o∣ther councell what so euer the same be of name or authoritie, haue power to a∣brogate that which Christ did ordaine, and the primitiue church did vse, or cō∣demne the same for heresie.

Surely no man, no not the Angels haue this power, and therefore if they goe forward to condemne that for here∣sie which Christ did institute, and was receiued of the first Apostolical church, it may then easily appeare to all men, that Christe him selfe, and his churche, is had in suspition by those Councels: And truely, I had rather be counted an hereticke with Christ and his churche, than to beare the name of a Christian with these late councels.

But yet héere haue they an other* 1.16 shift, to wit, to auoide slander and other daungers, least the lay men shuld shed any of the wine, and so by this meanes bring the sacrament into contempt. As thoughe the eternall wisdome of God sawe not these things before he institu∣ted the cuppe, and could not he, if it had séemed to him good, haue forbidden the lay men the vse of the same? But sith the eternall wisedome of God hath gi∣uen the same vnto them, let vs content our selues therewith, onlesse we would séeme to haue more wisdome than god. And may not the priests I pray yée, shed

the wine as well as the lay men? And why then, shuld not the same be forbid∣den vnto them? But the Lordes supper is brought into contempt for farre ma∣ny other causes, than when any parte of the Wine falleth by chaunce on the grounde, or is shedde vnwillingly. For true faithe, burning charitie, stedfaste hope, faithfulnesse, mercy, iustice, and the puritie of those which cōmunicate, are the true ornamentes of the Sacra∣mentes. Wherefore, what offences, or what honor they bring to this Sacra∣ment which daily vse the same to gette their liuing thereby, & yet in the meane time are drunkardes, whoremaisters, vncleane persones, studying all vngod∣lynesse, & liue publikely in their naugh∣tinesse, to the great offence of many, is nowe by the great mercy of God, most manifestly knowne. Wherefore I har∣tely beséeche almighty God to graunte all those the true knowledge of their sinnes, wherby they may repent and a∣mend their liues.

Amen.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Diners opi∣nions tou∣ching Chri∣stes presence in the Sacra∣mente.
• * 1.2

  The true and auncient doc∣trine of the sa∣cramēt against transubstantia∣tion.
• * 1.3

  The faythefull doe not receiue bread only in the Supper.
• * 1.4

  Howe the true bodie of christ must be recei∣ued.
• * 1.5

  How ech man oughte to be∣haue himselfe in the contro∣uersie of the sacrament.
• * 1.6

  The presence of Christ.
• * 1.7

  Whether the Priests make bred & wine, the verie bo∣dy and bloud of Christ.
• * 1.8

  The true or∣dering or making of ministers.
• * 1.9

  Whether Christ be wholi vnder one kind.
• * 1.10

  The papistes wil eate vp al Christ and no more.
• * 1.11

  Whether the Lordes supper were giuen to the Apostles only.
• * 1.12

  Both the kinds in the sacramēt are due to al men.
• * 1.13

  The supper of Christ vvyth his tvvo disciples at Emaus.
• * 1.14

  The Corrin∣thians dydde not offend bycause they vsed the cup of our Lord.
• * 1.15

  The councel of Constance touchyug bothe the kyndes.
• * 1.16

  of the decrees and sclanders that happe in the vse of both kindes.