The badges of Christianity. Or, A treatise of the sacraments fully declared out of the word of God Wherein the truth it selfe is proued, the doctrine of the reformed churches maintained, and the errors of the churches of Rome are euidently conuinced: by pervsing wherof the discreet reader may easily perceiue, the weak and vnstable grounds of the Roman religion, and the iust causes of our lawfull separation. Diuided into three bookes: 1. Of the sacraments in generall. 2. Of Baptisme. 3. Of the Lords Supper. Hereunto is annexed a corollarie or necessary aduertisement, shewing the intention of this present worke, opening the differences among vs about the question of the supper, discouering the idolatry and diuisions of the popish clergy, ... By William Attersoll, minister of the Word of God.

Chap. 5 Of the third outward part of the Lords Supper

THe third outward part of the Lords supper followeth, a 1.1 which are the elementes of bread and wine, fittest

signes for this purpose, to signifie the spirituall nourish∣ment of the soule, by eating the body and drinking the blood of christ. That these are appoynted as the substance and matter of the supper, it appeareth by the wordes of Christ, and his Apostles deliuering this sacrament. For the Euangelists expresse, b 1.2 that Christ tooke bread, gaue it, and said, Takeye, and eate ye. So like wise, it is said of the church newly planted by the Apostles, that such as gladly receiued the word, and were baptized, Continued in the A∣postles doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking of bread. And chap. 20 * 1.3 it is recorded, That the first day of the weeke, the Disciples came together to breake bread. And Paule saith 1 Cor. 10. the bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? And in the chapter c 1.4 following, the same Apostle often menti∣oneth and remembreth the bread of this sacrament. In like manner Christ tooke the cup, d 1.5 wherein was the fruite of the vine. By these, Christ is truely exhibited vnto vs: he is truely offered vnto all: he is effectually giuen to the faith∣full, as hath beene oftentimes remembred vnto vs.

This being the plaine and euident truth, let vs see the vses, first such as concerne both the signes ioyntly and in * 1.6 generall, then such as belong to each of them in seueral and in particular. To begin, we learne from hence to acknow∣ledge a difference between baptisme and the Lords supper: in baptisme we haue one signe as the materiall part, in the supper we haue two signes, e 1.7 partly to note out our whole, ful, and perfect nourishment in Christ, hauing whatsocuer is requisite for our saluation, and partly to shew, a fuller re∣membrance of his death, for the wine which is a figure of his blood, doth as it were present it and represent it before our eyes. So then, albeit the same participation of Christ and the same washing away of sinnes by his blood, are sea∣led vp in baptisme and in the supper: yet the manner f 1.8 of sealing them in each is diuerse. Againe, baptisme is a signe of our entrance into Gods Couenant: the Supper is a signe of our abiding, and continuing in that couenant. Touching baptisme, it is sufficient for infants if they bee

borne in the church: in the supper, the condicion of examȳ∣ning our selues, and remembring the Lords death is requi∣red. They differ also in often celebration of them: bap∣tisme is to be receiued but once onely in all our life, be∣cause the promise once made, is alwaies firme and forci∣ble to such as beleeue and repent: but the supper is of∣tentimes to be receiued, because an often renewing of that Couenant, and calling it to our remembrance is necessary, to increase and strengthen faith. They differ al∣so in the order which is to be obserued in the vse of them: for baptisme is to be giuen before the Supper, and the supper may not be giuen to any, except to such as haue beene first baptized, or reputed so to be.

As first a child is borne, before he bee fed: so must Baptisme go before, whereby our new-birth is sealed: then the supper must follow after, whereby our dayly nourishment is declared and confirmed. Lastly, they differ in the signes, there is onely one signe in bap∣tisme, which is the Water: but there are two signes in the Lords Supper, to wit, the bread and the wine.

The second general vse is, that if Christ tooke, gaue, and * 1.9 deliuered the substance of bread and wine: then they must needes retain their former nature & their proper substance, as well as their qualities, as fight, tast, smell, bignesse, whitenesse, sweetenesse, rednesle, roundnesse, and such like properties. But the Papistes turne all thinges g 1.10 vpside downe, matter into forme, substance into accidents, crea∣tures into shewes, and subiects into things adioyned: they bring in new shifts and fables against all diuinity, phyloso∣phy, reason, sense, and experience, setting vp their own in∣uentions, and building castles in the aire. Let them proue the annihilation and remouing of the substance of bread & wine away, and the h 1.11 consisting of accidents without sub∣iect, which they are neuer able to doe. For as the water in baptisme remaineth in his nature and substance: so do the bread & wine in the Lords supper. And albeit in both the sacraments, the signs be chāged to a special vse: yet are they

corrupted into shewes, and turned into shadowes. The heauens i 1.12 shal be changed at the end of the world: yet hence it followeth not, that they shall bee cleane abolished and consumed to nothing. All young schollers are taught in the schooles, k 1.13 that an accident hath no being without a subiect: yet heere these sophisters, against all the rules of Logick, l 1.14 and groundes of reason, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue accidents and shewes of bread and wine to be in no subiect. Thus, whereas in all places of learning we are taught, that acci∣dents may 〈◊〉〈◊〉, not the substance of things: they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue the matter and substance to perish, not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. We see whitenes, roundnes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉: we cast the sweet∣nes: we touch al these qualuies: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (behold a popish won∣der, where at marueil and be 〈◊〉〈◊〉) these, these I say are not in the bread and wine, because they are gone, neither in the body of christ, because it is not white or black, roūd, or red. So we shall haue a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thing, yet nothing white: a round thing, yet nothing round: a smel, yet nothing that smelleth: a tast of bread, yet nothing that tasteth, a brea∣king, and yet nothing that is broken: so that heere we haue some what made of nothing, and nothing made of somewhat. For if any should aske them, what round or white thing is this, shewing the bread? Or what sweete thing is that, pointing out the wine in the cup? They can∣not say, it is bread and wine (for they hold that none are lest) they are not able to shape any answer: for they will not say, the body of Christ is white, round, sweete, red, or such like, Wherefore, these accidents of bread and Wine rouing without subiects, are shewes of reason without sub∣stance, colours without truth, and fancies without settled iudgement: and as well might they imagine, walking without feete, an house without a foundation, a vessell without bortom, or a body without space or place.

Againe, what is it that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nourish? What is it that doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and refresh? For wee feele our bodyes strengthned by the creatures taken and receiued. And we read in their owne Histories that king Lewes the Gentle for

the m 1.15 space of 40. daies did eate nothing else. What is it then whereby we feele our selues to be fed? Can their acci∣dents do it, hanging in the aire by miraculous Geometry? Can whitnesse, or rednes, or roundnesse nourish vs where no sub∣stance is to be found or felt? Can drinesse, or moysture, can smelling or seeing nourish without some materiall body? They cannot. It must be substance that is turned into our substance: for neuer was it heard, that accidents were tur∣ned into substance. But whereas we haue beene taught, that accidents are in their subiect, now we must hold for our new learning, that substances are in their accedents. Wherefore, let vs leaue these doubtfull and deceitfull builders that go about to build without ground or foundation, which cannot stand.

The third generall vse, arising from both the signes, is this: if Christ deliuered his last Supper in bread and wine, then * 1.16 these signes may not be altered, but must be n 1.17 retained for the perpetual vse and comfort of the church. And howsoe∣uer it be left to the choyse and liberty of the church, what bread or what wine they will vse: yet that it ought necessa∣rily (as I take it) to be bread and the fruite of the vine, may appeare by diuerse good considerations. I will propound the reasons that draw me to this opinion, let the Church iudge of them, seeing the o 1.18 spirits of the prophets are sub∣iect to the prophets. First, the institution of the supper and the example of Christ himselfe, whom the Church is to imi∣tate and follow, who said, Do p 1.19 this in remembrance of me. He said not, doe the like, or do what pleaseth you, and swarue from my example where you will, but do this which ye haue seene me do. Whosoeuer therefore change either the bread or wine, do not that which Christ commaundeth, but another thing then he appointeth. Againe, no other signes are so significant & effectual as these are for this purpose, to strengthen and to comfort them that are in trouble, and al∣most in the present q 1.20 estate of death, as Psal. 104. He bring∣eth forth bread out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart * 1.21 of man, and oyle to make the face to shine, and bread that strength∣neth

mans heart. Likewise the wise-man saith Pro. 31. Giue ye strong drinke vnto him that is ready to perish, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to them that haue griefe of heart. So that we are heerby effectually and sig∣nificantly put in mind, to haue a most sweet feeling of christ, to seeke strength in him, and that it is he which aboundantly cleereth our hearts. Thirdly, the matter and forme of euery thing, r 1.22 are holden to be of the nature of it, and to constitute the essence: so it is in the sacramentes, where the signes are the matter, and the words of institution are the forme. True it is, circumstances may vary and be changed, as time, place, sitting, standing kneeling, and such like: but the essentiall parts may not be changed. If 〈◊〉〈◊〉, both of them be of the es∣sence of the sacrament, such 〈◊〉〈◊〉 take either of them away, de∣stroy the sacrament, and bring in a nullity therof. Wherfore, if the signs, which are the matter, might be changed: then the words also of institution which are the forme might be alte∣red, and a new word brought into the Church: but a new word cannot be brought in, therfore no new outward signe or matter. Fourthly, if the bread & wine in the supper might be changed, and yet the sacrament in substance remaine: then in like manner, water in baptisme might be changed, & yet be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 baptisme; for of things that are like, there is a like respect, and like conclusion to be inferred. But this can∣not be, as we haue shewed before in 2. booke, chap. 5. where we haue proued that the minister cannot baptize with any other liquor or element, then with water, as the matter of that Sacrament. Neither let any obiect the case of necessity: for no necessity can make that lawfull which simply and in it selfe is vnlawfull. Fiftly, if we admit and grant a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the signes at the pleasure of men: why may we not also change other parts of the Sacrament? Why may we not in stead of the minister appoynted of God and called 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Church, admit pryuate persons, and receiue other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 inforced vpon the church by the papistes? Do we not heereby open a gappe for them, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in all their trash and trumpery besides the written and reueiled worde of God? Sixtly, we haue shewed in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 booke, that Na∣dab

and Abihu the two sonnes Aaron were smitten by the immediate hand of God s 1.23 for offering the oblation with strange fire. But all signes brought into the sacraments be∣side the scripture, are strange signes and consequently pro∣cure strange iudgements. And we see how the prophet Ioell threatning from God a dearth of corne, and wine, and of oyle, declareth also that the offerings shall cease, where he t 1.24 saith, The field is wasted, the corne is destroyed, the oyle is 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the new wine is dryed vp, the meate offering and the drinke offering is cut off from the house of the Lord, the priestes the Lords Mini∣sters shall mourne: shewing heereby, that they were restray∣ned from changing the out ward signes. If any pretend grea∣ter freedome and liberty in the time of the gospell: let them shew their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and wee will beleeue them. Lastly, it is confessed on all sides, that without consecration and sanctification, there can be no Sacrament: for without this halowing, the matter in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is bare water, the bread in the Supper is bare bread, the Wine is Common Wine. Now euery creature u 1.25 is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as the Apostle teacheth 1 Tim. 4. and therefore we cannot assure our hearts, that god wil blesse any other creatures, as fish or flesh in stead of bread, water or beere in stead of Wine, seeing the word hath not sanctified these elementes for this purpose. They are sanctified by the worde for the ordinary nourishment of our bodyes, but they are not by any speciall worde sanctified for the vse of the Sacramentes. If then it be simply vnlawfull, to change any thing in the matter of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, no pre∣tence or necessity can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 make it lawsull. And as when a lawfull Minister is wanting, a pryuate person may not be taken: so when the matter appoynted for the admini∣stration of this sacrament is missing, an other may not bee assumed. For as well may wee change the mini∣ster of the Sacrament into a pryuate man, as the bread and Wine (being the signes) into another matter. If the Sacraments cannot be had according to the precise and pure institution of Christ, they may lawfully be deferred or

omitted: for the danger standeth not in the want (as wee haue declared before) so long as we are free from the con∣tempt of them.

The fourth generall vse, arising ioyntly from both the signes is, if Christ deliuered, and the Disciples receiued * 1.26 bread and wine as the outwarde signes of this Sacrament: then we learne that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a dotage a 1.27 of mans inuention. Though this deuise be now receiued in the Roman church, as a matter of saluation, as an Article of faith, and a maine point of religion, b 1.28 that by vertue of these words. This is my body, this is the cup of the new Testament, the substaunce of breade and wine is gone, and nothing remaineth but onely the shewes, likenes, and appearance of them: yet, if we examine the matter by the words of institucion, by the nature of a sacrament, by the proportion of faith, by the true properties of a true humain body, by force of reason, by iudgement of the sences, by confession of the aduersaries themselues, and by the ma∣nifold contradictions among themselues: we shall find it to be a late deuise & inuention of the Papists, first decreed and determined in the counsel of Laterane, vnder pope In∣nocentius the 3. in the raigne of King Iohn of England, c 1.29 not yet 400. years ago. There it was hatched at that time, and made d 1.30 a main matter of faith, aproued in the church of Rome, but yet not then receiud ouer al the world. This error is a spice of the error of Marcus, who went about to make his fellows and followers beleeue, e 1.31 that he did trā∣substantiate wine into blood, in the sacrament. Thus do the church of Rome at this day, he was he noted for an heretick by the fathers. I wil not, for shortnes sake, bring all the rea∣sons that might be broght to ouerthrow and ouerturn f 1.32 the turning of the bread into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood; but alleage some few among many, wher∣unto we require them to answer if they can. Neither let thē pretend, that they haue bin answerd already, inasmuch as no sound and certain answer can be brought vnto them, to satisfie vs or themselues. Our reasons for the present shalbe these.

First, that which Christ took in his hands, he brake: that which he brake, he gaue: that which he gaue his Disciples, he commanded them to eat, that which hee commaun∣ded them to eate, hee calleth his bodye. This ap∣peareth by the testimony g 1.33 of the Euangelistes, and cohe∣rence of the words. But he tooke bread and brake it: there∣fore he gaue bread, he commanded to eat bread, he saide of the bread, This is my body. Now if he tooke bread, but brake it not: or if he brake bread, but gaue it not: or if he gaue bread to his Disciples to eat, but told them, not this which he gaue them, but some other thing beside that, was his body: the latter part of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 starteth from the beginning, and the middle swarueth from them both.

Secondly, the Apostle after the words of consecration, doth oftentimes call it bread, as 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye shall eat this h 1.34 bread, and drinke this cup, ye shew the lords doath til he come. And againe, Whosoeuer shall eat this bread, and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the bodie and blood of the Lord. And againe, Let a man examme himselfe, and so let him eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. These men say, it is not bread: the Apostle saith, it is bread: whether of these we shall beleeue, iudge you. So in the former chapter hee saith, the bread which we breake, is it not the commanion of the bo∣dy of Christ? Likewise, touching the other signe, i 1.35 our saui∣our expressely calleth it wine after the thanks giuing, Mat. 26. I will not drinke hencefoorth of this fruit of the vine vntill that day, when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome. This fruit of the vine is wine, therfore the substance of it remai∣neth. Now if the bread had bene turned into the body, or the wine into the blood of Christ, and if the Apostle would haue spoken properly, he should haue said, As often as ye shall eat, not this bread, but this body of Christ vnder the forme of breade, the blood of Christ vnder the forme of Wine. And againe, he that eateth the body and drinketh the blood of Christ vnworthily. And againe, let a man ex∣amine himselfe, and so let him eat and take in his mouth the very body of Christ his creator. But thus the Apostle

hath not spoken, neither could he so speake truely, proper∣ly, and fitly: therefore we do truely, properly and fitly con∣clude, that there is no 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Thirdly, Christ speaking of the cup saith, Take, k 1.36 diuide it among you, and of the bread he saith, he tooke it, and brake it. But if the substance of bread be abolished, or chan∣ged into the body of Christ, and likewise the nature of the wine turned into the blood of Christ, there could be no true distributing or breaking: for the blood of Christ is not de∣uided into parts, neither is his body broken.

Fourthly, if the strength or force of transubstantiation de∣pend vpon these words of institution, This is my body, This is my blood: then there can be no reall change before these words be fully finished, and pronounced to the end. I here∣fore, when they begin to say 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is: What is it? What mean they, I say, it is? Is it any other then bread and wine by their owne confession till the wordes bee ended? So then, these sentences shall not be true, when they say, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is my body, this is my blood, except they meane, this bread is the body of CHRIST, this wine is his blood: where∣fore, bread and wine remaine, their nature is not changed and altered.

Fiftly, these wordes, This is my body, must be vnderstood, as the words following, This cup is the new testament: but the cup is not turned into the new testament, nor into the blood of Christ: therefore the other wordes must be figu∣ratiuely vnderstood, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉: for there is one re∣spect of them both: neither can any reason be rendred, why a figure should be admitted in the one part, rather then in the other.

The sixt reason: Christ is said to giue to his Disciples that which he saide was his body. If then this be properly ta∣ken, we shall thereby make a proper Christ and make him a Monster of two bodies, as they also make the church a Monster of two heads. For so there must be one body which gaue, and another body which was giuen. But it is most absurde, that he should giue and be giuen, hold him∣selfe

and beholden, offer and be offered: which differeth litle from the c 1.37 heresie of the Helcesaits, who held ther were sundry Christs, two at the least, one dwelling in heauen a∣boue, the other in the world heere beneath: so these make Christ to haue a double body, visible and inuisible; a visible * 1.38 body sitting at the table, and an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 body made of the substance of bread, which (as the papists hold) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 giuen to the disciples, as likewise they teach of the headship of the church that one head is inuisible to vs m the heauens, ano∣ther visible to vs vpon the earth. The 7. reason: it destroyeth the nature of a sacrament, which standeth m 1.39 of an earthly & heauenly part: one out ward, the other inward: one seene, the other vnderstood: one a signe, the other a thing signifi∣ed: of which we haue spoken before, book. 1. chap, 3. But if there be an actuall transubstantiation, then the outward part is abolished, and disanulled.

The 8. reason: in baptisme the substance of water remai∣neth, though it haue words of consecration, and be made a sacrament of our regeneration: and therefore in the Lords supper, the bread and wine are not changed and don away vtterly. The scripture speaketh as highly n 1.40 of the one as of the other.

The ninth reason: if bread be really turned into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood: then the bo∣dy and blood of Christ are really 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for the words are seuerally pronounced, first of the bread, then of the wine: yea the soule of Christ should be separated from his body, for the bread is turned onely into his body, and not into his soule. But his soule, his body, and his blood are not really separated.

The 10. reason: if the bread be turned into his body in∣deede by force of a few words vttered by a priest: then the priest should be the maker of his maker, and so euery Masse-monger should be preferred before Christ, as much as the creitor hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 honnour then the creature, the builder then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 house, the work-man then the worke. But they are not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to publish it in their owne

words and writings, o 1.41 that the priest is the creator of his creator, He that created you, hath giuen you power, to create him: he that hath created you without your selues, p 1.42 is created by you, by the meanes of you. These are the speeches of their wise-men, if they be not ashamed of their owne words.

The 11. reason: the bread in the Sacrament after the words of consecration, is subiect to as many changes and chances as it was before: the bread may mould, putrifie, and breede Wormes, q 1.43 and was accustomably in many places burned: the wine may (being immoderately taken) make drunken, it may wax sharpe and turne into vineger: yea both of them may be boyled and made hot: both of them may be vomi∣ted vp, as certaine lepers did; both of them may be ming∣led with rank poyson, as a certaine r 1.44 Monk gaue the poyso∣ned host to Henry the 7. a noble Emperour of famous me∣mory, which when he had taken, he dyed. The like may be said of Victor the 3. a Pope of Rome, who was poysoned af∣ter the same manner s 1.45 in the chalice, as the Emperor was in the bread. But the precious body and blood of Christ can∣not be mingled with poyson, but is an excellent counter∣poison against the biting of the old Serpent and all infection ofsinne whatsoeuer; the body cannot mould or putrifie, the blood of Christ cannot become sharp or sowre, as the out∣ward signes may, therefore the substance of bread and wine remaineth. The 12. reason: there is something in the sacra∣ment, materiall and substantiall, which goeth the way of all meates, according to that saying of our sauiour, t 1.46 Perceiue ye not yet, that what soeuer entreth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But none of the accidents, as shape, colour, quality, tast, & such like are auoyded, because they are altered in the stomacke, before they come to the place of auoydance: u 1.47 and it were blasphemy to thinke that the body of Christ either entreth into the mouth, or goeth downe into the belly, or is cast out into the draught, howso∣many of them haue also maintained this monstrous impie∣ty: Therefore, the substance of the bread and the wine re∣maine in their owne nature in the sacrament.

The 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉: If there were a miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine, it would appeare to the outward sen∣ses. as Ioh. 6, The multitude a 1.48 saw his Miracles. There was ne∣uer Miracle wrought by any bodyly creature, but sense iudged it to be so: but seeing our eyes see, and our tast dis∣cerneth that it is bread, we cannot imagine, there is any mi∣racle. The Miracles that Moyses did in Egypt, when he tur∣ned water into blood, and his rod into a Serpent: The mira∣cles b 1.49 that Christ did, when he turned water into wine, the eye saw, the tast discerned, heere was no deceit, no fraud, no collusion. And thus euery hedge-priest should be a worker of Miracles, that onely can read his portuise, and say ouer his pater noster with an Aue mary. This is an honor that may be chalenged, but cannot be granted vnto them.

The 14 reason: if there were any transubstantiation there shold be an actuall conuersion of the bread into the body of Christ; but this cannot stand. For when one thing is chan∣ged into another, the matter remainetin, the forme is altered: but heere they make the forme to abide, and the matter to be changed. A strange Metamorphosis, and fitting the fable of this counterfeit turning. Now the matter of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is not in the body of Christ, because it is perfect in it selfe, and so glorified, that it can receiue no accesse. Besides, nothing can be conuerted or changed into a thing before being and pre∣existing, which was really before the change or conuersion; as Christ turned the water into that wine which was not be∣fore, c 1.50 & Moses turned his rod into that serpēt which was not before: and Lots wife was turned into that pillar which was not before. But the body of Christ is before their transub∣stanriation, wherupon it follow weth, that the bread cannot be changed into his body.

The 15. reason: if Christ did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the bread into his body when he saud This is my body: then in like man∣ner, the Apostle did 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Co∣rinthians into the body of Christ, when 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Now ve are d 1.51 the bodie of christ, and members for your 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can they alleage, why 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be in the one

sentence more thē in the other? For the whole colledge and company of diuines of Rome and Rhemes, and all the multi∣tude of papistes through out the world shall neuer be bet∣ter able to proue their transubstantiation out of these words This is my body: then out of the other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are the body of Christ.

The 16. reason: if the bread were turned into the body of Christ and receiued in the mouth: it should go farre better with our bodies then with our soules, because our bodyes should really receiue the body of Christ, but our soules should not, being spirits: and bodies cannot be mingled and intermedled with spirits. Wherefore, we cannot be∣leeue and receiue this real conuersion of one substance into another. The 17. reason: if the bread be transubstantiated into the body of christ, and so receiued by vs: then either it is turned into our bodies, or vanisheth away into nothing, or returneth and departeth back into heauen. But it is not turned into our bodily substance, for then we should grow bodily and not spiritually, carnally not mistically, into one person with him: neither doth it vanish to nothing, for this were horrible blasphemy once to imagine and conceiue of the body of christ: neither doth it depart into heauen, for he was there before, and the heauens containe him to the end of all things. Therefore, the bread cannot be said to be turned into the body of christ, except one of these be gran∣ted. And thus also we may reason of the wine. If it be tur∣ned into the blood of Christ, it must necessarily passe into our substance, or vanish away, or returne to the heauens: for no fourth way can be imagined. But none of these can stand either with diuinity or phylosophy, either with faith or rea∣son, either with scripture or nature, and therfore conse∣quently transubstantiation must fall.

The 18. reason: if the disciples had not vnderstood christ to call the bread his body sacramentally: they would haue beene greatly troubled (who often doubted of the least things) and demaunded the vnderstanding of them. As the hearers of Christ Ioh. 6, supposing he had spoken of a carnal manner of eating his e 1.52 flesh, were troubled and offended,

saying, How can this man giue vs his flesh to eate? And vers. 60, This is an heard saying, who can heare it? Wherefore, who seeth not, that they would haue marueiled and required farther, if they had vnderstood christ to haue changed the bread in∣to his body, and the wine into his blood? But they doubt not, they demand not, they maruaile not, they murmur not, and therfore beleeue not this iugling of transubstantiation, or turning of one substance into another. And if they be∣leeued it not, how should we receiue it.

The 19. argument: it ouerturneth sundry Articles of our Christian faith. Wee beleeue that Christ Iesus was be∣gotten of the father before all worldes, and borne in time of the Virgin Mary: this the Scripture teacheth, this the Creed deliuereth: this euery true Christian professeth and beleeueth. But if the bread be transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine into the blood of christ: then his body is made and borne of bread and wine, and the priest after the words of consecration may say, a little pretty son is borne vnto vs, and newly made. Againe, we beleeue that Christ was crucified and died for our sins, that he was buri∣ed, rose againe, ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. But if the body of Christ bee made of bread as often as the Eucharist is celebrated, then Christ being on the Crosse might be elsewhere then on the Crosse: when he died, he might be where he suffered no∣thing: lying in the graue, he might bee out of the graue: yea hee might be in the graue after his resurrection and rising out of the graue: wherof notwithstanding the An∣gels said, f 1.53 he is not heere. Lastly, we beleeue that christ shall come from heauen to iudge the quick and dead, and that in the same manner he ascended, g 1.54 whom we doubt not but men shall see, as Reuel. 1. 7. Euery eye shall see him, yea euen they which pierced him through. But if Christes body be made of bread, he shall stare and start out of the pixe, and not come from heauen, and that in another shape then when he ascen∣ded: nay, thus he shold come daily vnto vs, & yet no man can see him, nor perceiue his cōming. Al these deuises, ouerthrow

foundation of faith, sauour of nouelty, and bring in heresie against all certaine grounds of true religion.

The 20. argument: if by vertue of Christs words, transub∣ftantiation were brought to passe, and the true body of christ were really present on the earth: then the bread should be changed into whole Christ, that is, into his body indu∣ed with his magnitude, quantity, quality, colour, and all his dimensions. For Christ said not at his supper, this is the substance of my body without accidents: but h 1.55 This is my body which is giuen for you, and which is broken for you. Therefore, the body was visible and seene of them all, it was felt, it had all accidents agreeable thereunto, and the substance of Christs body alone without his qualities was not cruci∣fied on the Crosse, neither yet could be crucified. Not with∣standing, we see not Christs body vpon the earth, nor any adioy nt thereof is perceiued or discerned. Where are they then? Are they in substance of christs body which is in hea∣uen? And not in the substance of his body which is on the earth? Then they make Christ to haue two distinct bodies: for one and the same body cannot haue his properties and dimensions, and yet bee without them, which necessarily implyeth a contradiction, and consequently falsehood: es∣pecially considering how great a difference they make be∣tweene the body of Christ in heauen, and this body that li∣eth and lurketh vnder the accidents and shewes of bread in their box.

The 21. reason: it destroyeth the nature of a true body, it taketh away the defence vsed against heretickes, and bringeth in the heresies of Marcion, of Eutiches, and the Manichics, which i 1.56 denied Christ to haue a solid, and true humane body, & held that he had only a phantastical body without any materiall flesh, blood, or bone, in appearance and sight some what, but in deed and substance nothing. For they teach that his body is in infinite places at once, & those discontinued, voyd of quantity and quality, not circumscri∣bed, not visible, nor any way sensible: that being in heauē, he is really and corporally on earth, though not in the distance

betweene heauen and earth, nor in those places where the host is not: which is to assigne innumerable bodies to our sauiour Christ, and consequently to make him no body, which is in esfect as much as to deny he is come in the flesh, k 1.57 which is the very doctrine of Antichrist himselfe, as Iohn speaketh, Euery spirit that confesseth not, that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God: but this is the spirit of Antichrist, of whom we haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And in his 2. Epistle, Many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are entred into this world, which confesse not, that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh: he that is such a one, is a deceiuer and an Antichrist. But Orcam propoundeth this as the doctrine of the schooles, that l 1.58 The body of Christ is euery where, as God is euery where, and that if there were an host that filled all the world, the body of christ might be with euery part thereof when it should be consecrated. And Holcot treading in the same stepes of the schooles, not of the scrip∣tures, saith, If there had beene a thousand hostes in a thousand pla∣ces at the same time, that christ did hang vpon the crosse, m 1.59 christ had beene crucified in a thousand places. But it is an vnseparable property of bodies, to be locall and contained in place: n 1.60 take away space of place, and true dimensions from bodies, and they are no where, as Augustine teacheth. Besides, hence the fathers concluded the truth of Christs body be∣cavse, o 1.61 he might be seene and handled, and because he had flesh and bones, according to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Behold, my hāds and my feete, for it is I my selfe: handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me haue. But if he be neither seene nor handled in the sacrament, nor discerned to haue flesh and bones: how shall his humanity be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and maintained against heretikes impugning the same?

The 22. reason: it taketh away iudgement from the sen∣ses, and maketh the sacrament of truth to be a sacrament of forgery and falsehood: for the senses of seeing, of tasting, of touching, of handling and smelling, do iudge bread and wine to be in the sacrament, and not mans flesh truely and properly: neither can p 1.62 all the senses be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in their proper obiects, as euen the phylosophers themselues do teach, and that truely,

The 23. reason: it is an horible act and vnnaturall cruel∣ty for man to eate mans flesh, and for man to drinke mans blood: and therefore the papists are as humane as the Cyclops, Canibals, and other barbarous people. It is more brutish and barbarous q 1.63 to eate mans flesh, then to kill a man: and to drink mans blood then to shed it. Thus they make christian people eaters of mans flesh and bloode suckers, which is beastly and horrible wickednesse.

The 24. reason: the Apostle maketh an opposition be∣tween the table of the Lord, and the table of deuils, saying, r 1.64 Ye cannot drinke the cup of the Lord, and the cup of deuils: ye can∣not be partakers of the Lords table, and of the table of deuils: where he sheweth, that to eate the flesh offered to idols is to bee partakers of the idols. as the bread which we breake, is the participation and communion of the body of the Lord. Hence he concludeth, that they should not eate of those thinges which the Gentiles sacrifice to idols, because they haue fellowship with the diuils that eate of them, euen as they are vnited to Christ which partake of the bread in the supper. If then the flesh offered to idols be not transubstan∣tiated: why fhold the sacramental bread be turned into the body of christ, seeing it sufficeth to make vs partakers of the Lords body to eat of the bread, as it was sufficient to make them partakers of the idols, to eate of the thinges offered vnto them? The 25. reason: if the institution of Christ be a sufficient direction vnto the church what to hold in this questiō, we shal easily giue this transubstantiation a fall. We see in the cases of matrimony that did befall, our sauiour bringeth them to the first institution, and therby dissolueth the doubts and difficulties that arose, saying, s 1.65 Frō the begin∣ning it was not so. So when any controuersie ariseth about the Lords supper, the ordinance of Christ is able to take it vp, how great or grieuous soeuer it grow. Now, there is no sen∣tence, no word, no sillable, no iot, no title in the discription of the supper, that fauoreth or sauoreth of transubstantiati∣on, or signifieth and insinuateth any such matter. True it is, christ saith t 1.66 This is my body, but to be doth not signifie to

transubstantiate: for then when he saith, u 1.67 I am the true vine, I am the dore, the way, and such like, he shall be turned and transubstantiated into a natural vine, into a materal doore, into an high way, from whence would follow infinite abu∣ses and absurdities. Besides, if the word (is) in the institution fignifie, is transubstantiated, that is, changed from one sub∣stance into an 〈◊〉〈◊〉, from bread into flesh, from wine into blood: then the change shold be made before all the words be vttered, so that hence it would follow, that it cannot be done by vertue of the words, which goeth before the pro∣nouncing of the words. Last of al, the maintainers of tran∣substantiation, as the builders of babel, haue their tongs di∣uided, and their languages confounded: they cannot accord together, but vary and dissent one from another, a 1.68 like the false witnesses that arose against christ. First, they knew not certainely, whether the bread bee turned into his body, or come in place thereof, the substance departing. Secondly, some alow not these speaches, b 1.69 bread is Christes body, or bread is made christs body: but wil haue it said, christs bo∣dy is made of bread: c 1.70 others condemne this speach also, that bread is made christs body. Thirdly, they know not what is broken, whether bread, or accidents, or nothing: others say, the true body of christ is broken, Fourthly, they agree not, whether their water in the chalyce mingled with wine, be transubstantiated: some say it is, other say it is not: some more sober then the rest, are afraid what to say, d 1.71 and aske who is able to decide the questiō? Others say it is turned into the humors of his body: others virknit the knot thus, that the water is turned into the wine, and then the wine into his blood, and therefore are circumspect to giue this cautel that a litle water be mingled, being afraid, least, if more water were put in then the wine, the wine should be transubstanti∣ated into water. Fiftly, they cannot agree with what words their consecratiō is wrought, whether accidents be without their subiect, whether the accidents norish no lesse then the substance of bread & wine: likwise what the rats & mise do eat: how & srō whence the worms are oftentims in gendred

Eucharist, and so consume it: whether the shewes of bread be the body without the blood, and the shews of wine the blood without the body. It were infinite e 1.72 to note out all their contentions and contradictions: these may suffice to shew how the enimies of God fight one against another, and all of them with their own shadwoes. And thus much of the late doting deuise of transubstantiation, which is the soule and life of their popish religion: the deniers or doub∣ters wherof, they pursue with fire and sword more eagerly, then such as are enemies to the blessed trinity.

The last generall vse is this: if christ deliuered both these signes, not onely the bread, but the wine also to his * 1.73 disciples: then both kinds by the minister are to be deliue∣red, f 1.74 and both kinds by the people are to be receiued, not bread alone, nor wine alone, but bread and wine: the bread in token of his body giuen for vs, and the wine in token of his blood shed for vs. This is the ordinance of Christ: this is a greeable to the scripture. Notwithstanding, the Church of Rome hath decreed, that it is not necessary for the people to cómunicate in both kinds, and holdeth them g 1.75 accursed that hold it necessary for the people, to receiue the cup, có∣secraced by the priest. Thus it appeareth, they labor nothing more, then to take from the faithful the sweete comfort of the Lords supper. This is a sacrilegious corruption of christs institution, deuised by sathan, broached by Antichrist, published by his adherentes in the corrupt times of most palpable darknesse, as may appeare by these reasons.

Frist, if none may drinke of the consecrate wine but the priest, then none should eat of the bread, but priests: so that they must either exclude the people from both which I trust they dare not, or admit them to both, which as yet they do not. For to whom Christ said, h 1.76 Take and eate, to those gaue he the cup and said, Drinke ye. Wherefore, the signes being both equal, all communicants must drinke of the one, as wel as eate of the other, there being the same warrant for the one, that there is for the other, and the let that would barre the one, will hinder the other: so as i 1.77

the thinges which God in his goodnesse hath ioyned toge∣ther, man without sinne cannot separate.

Secondly, when Christ instituted this sacrament, he said, k 1.78 Drinke ye all of this: and by all he vnderstood of the Com∣municants. And the Euangelist Marke addeth, They al drank of it, to wit, all that were present at his last supper, who had before eaten of the bread of the Lord. This also appeareth by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. They haue beene all made to drinke into one spirit. This commaundement of Christ being gene∣rall, imposeth a necessity vpon the people, when he saith, Take ye, eate ye, drinke ye, do ye this. These commaundements are perpetuall, vnchangable, and alwaies in force: not arbi∣trary, not temporall, not repealed, but bind the conscience to the end of the world, against which no limitation, or dis∣pensation can be alowed, being the commaundementes l 1.79 of God, not of man.

Thirdly, the cup is a part of Christes will and testament. Now touching the nature of a testament or will, the saying of the Apostle is knowne, m 1.80 If it be but a mans testament, when it is confirmed, no man doth abrogate it, or addeth any thing therto: where he sheweth, that the dead mans wil may not be chan∣ged, nothing can be put to, nothing taken out without for∣gery and salsehood. This is the law of nature and Nations. But the Lordes Supper is a sacrament proper to the new testament, as Christ saith, n 1.81 this cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you. This testament the Lord Iesus made the night before he was betrayed, he sealed it by shedding his most precious blood,- he hath giuen Legacies, not of earthly and temporall, but of heauenly and eternall goods. And seeing he hath appointed the cup of this his testament to be deliuered and drunke of all those for whom his blood was shed: it is intollerable boldnes and presumption to take away the vse thereof from the greater part of the Church, and an infallible token of an vnshamefast and shamelesse harlot, to alter her husbands will, to defraud and defeat his children of that worthy portion which their father alotted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and so to keepe backe part of their inhetitance and 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Fourthly, the blood of Christ shed vpon the Crosse be∣longeth not onely to the pastors and teachers, but to all the faithfull that come to the table of the Lord, as appeareth by the wordes of Christ, o 1.82 This is my blood which is shed for you and for many: why then should the blood of Christ be denyed, or the cup of the Lord be barred from them? If then the blood of Christ were shed for the people, as well as for the mini∣sters: surely the cup belongeth to one as wel as to the other. If the people haue the greater, who shall keepe them from the lesse? If they haue their part in the thing signified, who shall deny them of the outward signe? For as the fruite and effect of the blood of Christ is common to the people with the pastor: so should the cup also, which is the communion of his blood shed for the redemptionof the peoples sinnes, be diuided indifferently betweene the pastor and the peo∣ple.

Fiftly, the p 1.83 Apostle deliuered that to the Church which he had receiued from the Lord Iesus: Now the Church ought diligently to obserue the written traditions and veri∣ties of the Apostles, which are committed to posterity to be kept inuiolably. But he hath deliuered, how the Lord, after taking, blessing, breaking, and distributing of the bread, likewise tooke the cuppe, blessed, and distributed it among them, so saith the Apostle must the Churches do. If then he receiued this from the Lorde, to deliuer both kinds to the people; let the Church of Rome consider with her selfe, from whence she hath receiued the contrarye, to withhold one of the kinds from the people: for both can∣not proceed from one and the same spirit of truth, which is neuer contrary to it selfe.

Sixtly, if all the faithfull that come to the Lordes Table, must shew forth the Lords death vntill he come, and this be done by them as wel by drinking of the cup, as by eating of the bread: then all the communicants must receiue the sa∣crament vnder both kinds, q 1.84 vntill the second comming of christ. But the faithfull must shew forth the lordes death by eating of that bread and drinking of that cup, as the Apostle

teacheth, As often as ye shall eate this bread, and drinke of this cup, ye shew the Lordes death vntill he come. Therefore, all com∣municants must partake the sacrament vnder both kinds.

Seuenthly, the Apostle giueth an expresse commaunde∣mēt to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whole church, which al must obey that come wor∣thily to this holy table, Let a man examine himselfe, r 1.85 and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. Where he giueth a double commaundement, first to appeare reuerently, then to receiue worthily. Now, al that must proue and try them∣selues, are commaunded not only to eate bread, but to drink of the cup: but al must try and examine themselues: therfore al are commanded both to eat and drink at the lords table. If this be a commaundement to examine: then the wordes following of eating and drinking, are likewise commande∣ments. There is no halting in these, let them admit both, or let them deny both. Eightly, if the faithfull take not the cup in the supper of the lord, the condicion of Christians vnder the Gospel, shal be worse then of the Isralites vnder the law. For the people of Israell in the wildernesse hauing the same sacrament in effect with vs, s 1.86 Did all drinke of the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ, as the Apostle af∣firmeth. But out condicion is not worser and weaker then theirs: therefore all the faithful are to drink of the cup of the lord. Bellarmine, the Souldan of the Romish Synagogue, t 1.87 answereth thus, They drunke not water out of the rock when they did eate of the spirituall meate, but in another place, and at an other time. But this is an answearlesse answer which cannot satisfie. For albeit the sacraments of the Isralites as figures and types did represent the same graces that our Sacraments do: yet it is not necessary they should in all pointes answer each other, and in all respectes agree together. Besides, the Church of Rome at no time aloweth the people to drinke of the Wine, a seale of the blood of Christ: they keepe them from the cup of the Lord, both when they giue them the bread, and at all other times, and thereby make their estate worse then the estate of the Iewes. Indeed, if they did at any time permit al the people to drink of the cup, they

might pretend this example of the Israelites: but inasmuch as they vtterly deny them this part of the cup, they ouer∣throw themselues in their malice, and yet in their blindnes they do not see it. Lastly, many of the fathers, did both eate Manna and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 water out of the rock, if not in the same place, yet at one & the same time, u 1.88 inasmuch as they gathered thereof euery morning, and it ceased not, a 1.89 vntill they entred the frontiers and confines of the land of pro∣mise. But they neuer alow without a toleration and dispen∣sation, the people in any place, at any time, vpon any oc∣casion, and in any respect to tast of the cup in the Lords sup∣per. Ninthly, if the cup of the new testament may be taken from the Lordes people: in like manner the water in bap∣tisme may be taken away frō them. For the blood of christ, whereby remission of sins is purchased and procured, is re∣presented by the wine of the Lordes Supper, as well as by the water in baptisme. But the water in baptisme, without great sacriledge, cannot be omitted or neglected: where∣fore then should the cup be taken away.

Lastly, if any part of the supper might be taken away from the people: then like wise the word of God may be taken from them, for in this point there is the same reason and respect of them both. A Sacrament is nothing else but a visible word, and a sealing vp of the word: and the of∣fence semeth to be the same, whether a man break the seale, or rent the writing. But the word cannot be withdrawen frō Christian people, it being the instrument of faith, and the life of the Church. Wherefore it is the greatest wrong and iniury done to the people of God to take from them the cup of saluation. The answer to this reason must be, to con∣fesse the parts and yeeld the conclusion: forasmuch as by forbidding the people the reading of the Scriptures, they haue robbed them of the word of God, and taken from them b 1.90 the key of knowledge, neither entring themselues into the kingdom of heauen, nor suffering those that would enter. No marueile then, if they take the cup of blessing from the people, who haue taken from them the free vse of

the word of God. To conclude these reasons, it is Antichrist, who, contrary to the doctrine of christ, contrary to the insti∣tution of the supper, contrary to the practise of the Apostles, and contrary to the vse of the former churches, hath exclu∣ded the people languishing and th••••sting after the blood of christ, as the dry earth for the sweete shewers of raine, from taking the cup of the lord, and left them a dry cōmunion to eat the bread of the sacrament alone. Hauing considered the truth of God by sundry reasons, grounded in the scripture, that the people haue good interest and title in the cup, deni∣ed vnto them: let vs answer the c 1.91 obiections of the aduer∣saries, made against the former doctrine. First, they pretend, that christ administred it to the apostles only, and not to any of the people: & consequently the institution for taking the cup can be no general cōmaundement for al men: thus d 1.92 the Rhemistes reason. I answer, first it may be doubted and dis∣puted, whether onely the Apostles were present at his last Supper. For seeing diuerse were added vnto the church, and professed the faith of christ, seeing he had other disciples be∣side the twelue, seeing many Godly men and women follo∣wed him to see his miracles, and to hear the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth: why should we think that none of them were admi••ted to his table, who had often heard his preaching, and depended vpon him in their liuing. Again, the passeouer was celebrated in that house, e 1.93 of a faithful man, as may be collected by sundry circumstances: now thē, either the lord Iesus annexed that famely vnto his, as the law in one case appointed, or else we shall haue two passe-ouers at one time in one house, which hath no warrant of scrip∣ture, no colour of truth, no probability of reason. We read in the institution & celebration of the passe-ouer of ioyning house to house, f 1.94 and taking his neighbor next vnto him in case of the insufficiency of one houshold to eate the lambe: but we neuer read of killing two, lambes, and keeping two passeouers vnder one roofe. Besides, the smal remnant of the faithful among the Iewes, would no-doubt rightly and religi∣ously obserue the passe-ouer after the example of their lord

and maister, rather according to the g 1.95 precept of Moses' then aceording to the practise of the Iewes: in imitation of christ, h 1.96 rather then according to the tradition of the elders. Furthermore, we are to consider, that in eating the passe∣ouer, they sorted thēselues together according to the num∣ber of the persons able to eate vp the lambe: for they com∣manded to take i 1.97 A lambe without blemish, a male of a yeare old: & if the houshold be to little for the lambe, he shal take his neighbour which is next vnto his house. Now christ with his twelue disci∣ples alone, were not sufficient to eat vp this lambe of a yeare old, being great & large according to the sirian kind, as may be supposed by the k 1.98 discription of Aristotle, Pliny, & others. Neither doth it appeare that any remained, or was burned with fire, l 1.99 according to the institution of God, because the Euangelists declare, that so soone as the supper was admini∣stred and a psalme sung of thanksgiuing, m 1.100 they went out into the Mount of Oliues. Why then should we not thinke, that christ added and annexed other to his family, seing his own disciples sufficed not, especially the blessed virgin his mother who was not long from him, n 1.101 whom afterward af∣ter his departure, he commended and committed to Iohn, to be protected and prouided for, who from that time took her home to his house as his own mother. But to leaue these consideratiōs as coniectures, we answer the former obiecti∣on, that in asmuch as christ deliuered both signs to the same, persons, they might bar the people frō the bread as wel as from the cup. For I would know why the bread is necessary, but because it was instituted by christ, and retained by his Apostles? Wherefore, the institution maketh the one as requisite as the other. Besids, if other heretiks should arise, as great enemies to the peoples partaking of the bread, as the church of Rome is to their cōmunicating of the cup of the Lord: how might they better be repressed and refelled, then by alleaging the first institution of christ, and shewing the practise of the Apostles: so that the reasons brought to confute the one, wil serue directly to ouerthrow the other. Moreouer, the disciples at the first ministration of the sup∣per, performed not the office of the minister, nor any part

of his duty, but of the people Christ was the minister therof, he took the bread, he blessed, he brake, he gaue the bread, sai∣ing, This is my body. Likewise he tooke the cup, blessed, & gaue the same, saying This cup is the new testament in my blood. On the other side, the disciples took it, did eat and drinke, which are the proper duties of all the people: Lastly, the Apostle saith not in the first person, we ate and drink, as speaking of him∣selfe & other teachers of the church: but directing his speach to all o 1.102 that are called and sanctified in Christ in euery place (according to the inscription of the epistle) he saith, As often as ye shal eate this bread p 1.103 & drinke this cup ye shew the Lords death til he come. Now these Corinthians, to whō he specially wrote, could not liue vntill the second comming of christ to iudge∣ment: therefore this eating and this drinking belongeth to al that cal vpon the name of god to the end of the world.

Secondly, they object against the former truth, this out of * 1.104 Act. 2, They continued in the apostles doctrine, and in breaking of bread: and Ch. 20, they came together to break bread. It is not said, to deliuer the cup vnto the people q 1.105 but to breake bread: wherby they gather, it was ministred vnto the people in one kind onely, and not in both. I answer, by a cōmon Synecdo∣che, * 1.106 one part is put for the whole. For among the Hebrewes, this phrase in scripture to eate bread, is to receiue whole nou∣rishment & ful refreshing by eating and drinking: as appea∣reth by r 1.107 many places, wher mentioning only bread for food, it were madnes to imagine and gather that they drunk not. Besides, the Apostle putteth the other part, to wit, drinking of the s 1.108 cup, for the whole celebration of the supper, when he saith, By one spirit we are al baptized into one body, and haue been al made to drink into one spirit: where we see, as our sauiour added the vniuersal note drink ye al of this: and as the Euangelist Mark accordeth, saying they al dranke of it: so the Apostle doth not pretermit it, but saith, al were made to drink: as if the Lord Iesus, the Euangelists and the Apostles would preuent before hād, the corruption & followed in the church of Rome. Wherfore, seeing drinking of the cup, doth not properly note out the whole action, because no man was euer so grosly blinded, to suppose that the cup might be alone administred: it follow∣eth, that by this member expressed, we must vnderstand the

other, and by one part the whole. Furthermore, it is a ruled case among themselues, that it is flat sacriledge, if a priest consecrate not this sacrament in both kindes, but do it in bread onely. If then the former scriptures, Act. 2. and ch. 20. proue the receiuing vnder one kind because bread onely is expressed, & so the cup to be excluded: it wil likewise fol∣low, they consecrated in one kinde, because the wine is not expressed: and therefore, by these places, neither priest nor people should take the cup, if they will not admit a trope or figure. Neither can they say, that Luke discribeth not, what the Apostles consecrated or receiued, but what they deliue∣red to the people: for the Euangelist declareth Act. 20. 11. not onely that the Apostle brake the bread, but t 1.109 did eate thereof himselfe: so that they must confesse, that Paule also receiued in one kind, and consecrated in one kind, or else necessarily grant one part put for the whole: as likewise we say 1 Cor. 11, where he doth expresly touch and teach both kindes, u 1.110 to the eating of the bread ioyning the drinking of this cup: yet sometimes a 1.111 he expresseth onely the one signe for shortnes sake, & the church had receiued this vsual man∣ner of speaking to call the Lordes Supperthe breaking of bread, as verse 20. When ye come together into one place, this is not to eate the Lords Supper: and verse 33. When ye come toge∣ther to eate, tary one for another: likewise verse 29. He discerneth not the Lords body: and yet in the sentence going before, hee saith that such as eate and drinke vnworthily, do eate and drinke their owne iudgement. Wherefore, as the Apostles alwaies celebrated the supper by conseeration both of the bread and of the cup: so the people alwaies receiued in both these kinds, to their great comfort and consolation.

Thirdly they alleage, that there is an vnion and coniunc∣tion of each signe, that the body is in the blood, and the * 1.112 blood in the body: that christ is wholly and perfectly vnder each kind, because now in his glorious body, b 1.113 there is no separation of the body from the blood, or blood from the body. I answer, surely if this were so, it were a fault and fri∣uolous * 1.114 thing to do that by more, which may be ^c done by

fewer, to vse two kindes, which may as well be done and is done vnder one, as a wise Philosopher teacheth. Besides, if one may reason in that soit, the whole supper might be a∣brogated, for we are made partakers of christ in d 1.115 baptisme, and he dwelleth in our hearts by e 1.116 faith which commeth by the word ofGod. Again, were not Christ and his Apostles as wise as they? Were they ignorant of this vnion? Did they not knowe this accompanying of the body with the blood, and blood with the body? Is the present church of Rome wiser then he, in whom al the f 1.117 treasures of wisedom and knowledge are hid? If they thinke so, let them tell vs plainly: if not, let them lay their hands vpon their mouth, and submit themselues vnto him who administred it in both kinds, and commaunded his Apostles to do the like. Moreouer, Christ would haue vs in his supper consider his blood separated from his body, and set his death before our eies, and his precious blood shed out of his side: so that, deliuering the cup, he said, g 1.118 Drinke ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, without which sheading, there is h 1.119 no forgiuenesse of sins, as the Apostle teacheth. Wherefore, seeing these two are contrary one to the other, and cannot stand together; to wit, the blood to be in the body and to be out of the body, to be shed sor vs and not to be shed, and that the sacrament leadeth vs to the consideration of the death, and especially of the pier∣cing and pouring out of the blood of Christ: we may con∣clude, that this i 1.120 vnion of the body with the blood, and blood with the body, flatly crosseth and ouerthroweth the institution of Christ. And why I pray you, do their sacri∣ficing priests receiue the blood twice, and the body twice, drinking first the blood in the body, and againe eating the body in the blood? Nay, doth not this vnion deuised, alter the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christ, and confound the seuerall parts of it, making him to speake otherwise then the euangelistes expresse? For when he said, This is my body, they will haue him meane, this is my body and blood: Againe, when he said this is my blood, they will haue him meane, this is my

blood and my body. Last of all, this late inuention, turneth and ouerturneth the nature of the partes, distinguished one from the other: while we eate the flesh they make vs drink the blood, and while we drinke the blood, they imagine we eat the body. Thus, to eat and to drinke shall be all one with them: for wee shal eate liquid and moift thinges, and we shall drinke dry and hard things. And is not this drink∣ing of flesh, and eating of blood, and inuerting & euerting of the nature of things? But thus God striketh his enemies with giddines of spirit. For after they haue broken the pure institution of christ, and brought in a carnal presence of his body (one absurdity being granted, k 1.121 a thousand follow) in∣finite abuses haue ensued vpon heapes, the flood-gats being set open, wherof there is no end or measure. Let thē ther∣fore repent themselues of this sacriledge against god, and iniury against his people, restoring vnto thē the cōmunion vnder both kinds, according ro the ordinance of christ, and directō of the Apostles. And thus much of the general vses, arising from both the signs ioyntly considered. Now, let vs * 1.122 come to the particular vses offered vnto vs, in each of the signes. And first, touching the bread. Is bread simply consi∣dered, the first signe in the lords supper? Then it is not neces∣sarily required, that it be administred in vnleauened bread. For bread is oftentimes named and repeated: but the word (vnleauened) is neuer added. Wherfore as it is in selfe indif∣ferent, whether the wine be red or white, & whatsoeuer the kind or colour be (if it be wine:) so is it not greatly materi∣all, whether the bread be leauened or vnleauened, so it bee bread. Which ouerthroweth the error of the church of Rome & her fauorites, who hold it l 1.123 neeessary, that the bread vsed in the Sacra. be vnleauened. They pretend the institution of Christ, who (say they) made the Sacra. of vnleauened bread, instituting it after he had eaten the passeouer, which was to be eaten with vnleauened bread m 1.124 according to the law of Moses, neither was there any leauen to be found in Israel 7. daies together. Thus they charge vs to breake the institution of Christ. But see heere the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and parti∣ality, of these proud spirits, who fly to the institution, and

sticke precisely to circumstances of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, when it serueth any way to their purpose: but when the question is of matters of substance not of circumstance, as touching communicating vnder both kinds, touching the necessity of eating & drink∣ing, and of many receiuing together against their halfe com¦munions, priuate masses, and reseruations, they cannot abide to be tyed and yoked to the institution. Indeed we deny not, but christ might vse vnleauened bread at his last supper, ha∣uing immediately before eaten the paschal lambe. This per∣aduenture is truely coniectured: yet no such thing is expres∣sed in the gospell, nor prescribed as a rule necessarily to bee followed. The Euangelists teach, he tooke bread: but make no mētion or distinction what bread he took, nor determine what bread we should take, no more then limit what wine we shal vse, but leaue it at liberty to take leauened bread or vnleuened, as occasion of time, place, persons, and other cir∣cumstances serue, so we take bread, as their own n 1.125 prophets haue confessed, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their own o 1.126 coūsels haue concluded. Wher∣fore, to consecrate in vnleuened bread is not of the substance of the supper, no more then to eat it at night or after supper, as christ administred and the apostles first receiued it. For if any would bring in a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of that time, as wel as of that bread which christ vsed, we see as faire a warrant for the one as for the other: nay we haue a more certain direction for the time which is expressed, then for the kind of bread which is not defined. Besides, if Christ on this occasion vsed vnleuened bread: it was, because it was vsual, common, and ordinary bread at that time, as we also should vse that bread, which is vsual and common. So the Apostle speaketh of that bread which was daily vsed among the Gentiles, saying, p 1.127 The bread which we breake: he addeth, neither leuened nor vn∣leuened, but vnderstandeth that in common and continuall vse. Thus then we conclude, it is no breach of christs ordi∣nance, nor a transgression of the first originall institution of the Lords supper, to eate either the one or the other.* 1.128

Againe, touching the other signe, which is the Wine, the church of Rome may iustly be charged with transgressing the ordinance of christ, who by her sole authority would type

vs to mingle water with wine for r 1.129 Great mistery & significa∣tion, especially, for that water gushed with blood out of our Lords side. So, they condemne all those Churches as doing impudently and damnably, that do not mixe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with wine in the sacrament, and say it cannot be omitted with∣out 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sinne. True it is, the Church in former times, where the wine, prouided for the Lordes Table, was of it selfe, heady, strong, hot, fiery, and fuming, was wont to allay it with water, that it might be mild and temporate: least that which was taken 〈◊〉〈◊〉 helpe and further the soule, should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the body. This began for conueniency, not for 〈◊〉〈◊〉: for fitnesse, not for signifi∣cation: for sobriety, not for any mistery. But the water is no part of Christs institution, neither can it be proued, that Christ or his Apostles vsed water with their wine, or com∣maunded others to mingle wine and water in this mistery, or that Christs apostles euer receiued it as a matter of faith, or taught it to be a necessary parte of this sacrament. For Alexander the 5. Byshop of Rome, was the first that s 1.130 ming∣led water 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wine at consecration, and ordained that the oblation should be of vnleauened t 1.131 bread, and not of lea∣uened, as till that time had beene vsed. Wherefore, let vs retaine and maintaine the plaine and simple institution of Christ, who in his last Supper gaue wine, not water to be drunk, for he calleth it the fruit u 1.132 of the vine, which is wine and not water.

Againe, they may be pressed and hampered with their own dreames and deuises. For, whereas they hold that the wine must be mingled with water, and that the elementes after the words of consecration are transubstantiated, and remaine in their owne nature no more: I would aske this question of these Watermen, rowing in the troubled Sea of their owne decrees (who are neere of kinne a 1.133 to the old he∣reticks called Aquarij) whether the water mixed with the wine be turned into blood? If they say it is not, then they deny transubstantiation of all that is within the cup, and so shake the vertue of their consecration in pieces: if they say

it is, then will they make Christ a watery body and elemen∣tall: besides, it cannot be by vertue os Christes institution, where water is neither expresled nor included. So then, their best defence is to answer with the Pharisies, b 1.134 We cannot tell. To conclude, let vs not seeke to be wiser then Christ, nor to mingle together more mysteries then we haue learned of him, as Paule saith of his own practise, c 1.135 That which I receiued of the Lord, I haue deliuered vnto you. Neither prophet, nor A∣postle, nor Angell from heauen is to teach otherwise then Christ himselfe hath taught, as he charged his disiples, Teach them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commaunded you. He hath supreme authority in the Church, his doctrine alone should be heard, as the father himselfe witnesseth from hea∣uen, d 1.136 This is my beloued sonne, in whom I haue delight, heare him. We are not to regard, what other before vs haue thought meete to doe, but what Christ did, who is before all other, and called himselfe the truth, e 1.137 and not custome. Thus much of the third outward part of the Lordes Supper, to wit, the two signes of bread and wine.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Bread and wine are the outward signes of the Lords 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• b 1.2

  Math. 26, 26 Mar. 14, 22 Luk. 22, 19 act. 2, 41, 42. & 20, 7
• * 1.3

  cor. 10, 16
• c 1.4

  1 cor. 11, 23 26, 27, 28
• d 1.5

  Math. 26, 29 Mar, 14, 25 Luk. 22, 18
• * 1.6

  Gener. vse. 1
• e 1.7

  Why we haue tvvo signes in the Lords supper and only one in baptisme?
• f 1.8

  Difference betweene baptisme and the Lords supper.
• * 1.9

  Gener. vlc. 2
• g 1.10

  Against the bare shewes of bread and wine: and accidentes without sub∣iect.
• h 1.11

  Arist. phis. lib. 1, cap. 3
• i 1.12

  Psal. 10 2. 26
• k 1.13

  Accidentis esse est 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• l 1.14

  porphyr. cap, 5 de accidente.
• m 1.15

  Aimoin. ex¦adem. lib. 5. cap 19.
• * 1.16

  Gener. vse. 3.
• n 1.17

  The bread and wine be-the matter of the Sacramēt may not be changed in the Lords Supper.
• o 1.18

  1 cor, 14, 32
• p 1.19

  1 cor, 11, 25
• q 1.20

  Psal 104, 14 15
• * 1.21

  Pro, 31, 6 Iudg. 9, 13 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 10, 19
• r 1.22

  arist. Metaph lib. 7. cap 7 plato in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• s 1.23

  Leuit 10. 1. 2
• t 1.24

  Ioel, 1, 9, 19
• u 1.25

  1 Tim. 4, 5
• * 1.26

  Genera. vse 4.
• a 1.27

  Aagainst transubstan∣tiation.
• b 1.28

  Concil. trid. sess. 13, cap. 4.
• c 1.29

  Anno. 1215.
• d 1.30

  barth Ca∣renza. summa concil.
• e 1.31

  Iren. lib. 1. cap. 9. Epiphan. haeres. 34.
• f 1.32

  The bread and wine re∣main in their proper nature
• g 1.33

  Math, 26, 26 Mar, 14, 22 Luk, 22, 19
• h 1.34

  1 cor, xi. 26 27, 28 1 cor. x. 16
• i 1.35

  Math, 26, 29
• k 1.36

  Luk, 22, 17 19
• c 1.37

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de fabul. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 2
• * 1.38

  August. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 34
• m 1.39

  Iren. lib 4 contr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap 34
• n 1.40

  Math. 26, 26 1 Pet. 3. 20. 21
• o 1.41

  stella cleri∣corum.
• p 1.42

  Creatura vobis median∣tibus vobis.
• q 1.43

  Hesych in Leuit. l. 2. c. 8 Humbert. cont. Nicet.
• r 1.44

  Bernard de monte polotia∣no de Dom∣castro. platin. in vita clem. 5
• s 1.45

  Hermannus Contractus.
• t 1.46

  Math 15, 17
• u 1.47

  Origen. in math. cap. 15
• a 1.48

  Ioh. 6, 26
• b 1.49

  August. de Trinit, lib. 3 cap. 10
• c 1.50

  Exod. 4, 3 Ioh. 2. 8 Gen, 19, 26
• d 1.51

  1 cor, 12, 27
• e 1.52

  Ioh. 652, 60
• f 1.53

  Mat, 28, 5
• g 1.54

  Reuel. 1, 7
• h 1.55

  Luk. 21 16 1 cor. 11, 24
• i 1.56

  August, de quod vuit de.
• k 1.57

  1 Ioh, 4, 3, & 2 Ioh. 7
• l 1.58

  Occam. in cen tilo. theol. con∣clus. 25, 26
• m 1.59

  Holcot. in 4 lib. sentent. quest 3
• n 1.60

  August. epist 57, ad dardan.
• o 1.61

  Luk. 24, 39
• p 1.62

  arist. lib, 2 de anim. cap. 6
• q 1.63

  August. de doctr christ. lib. 3. cap. 16, cyril. anat. 11,
• r 1.64

  cor, 10, 20, 21
• s 1.65

  Math, 19, 3 4, 8,
• t 1.66

  Math. 26, 26
• u 1.67

  Ioh. 15, 1, & 10, 7 &. 14. 6
• a 1.68

  Mark. 14, 56
• b 1.69

  Thom. p 3 qu 75, art. 8
• c 1.70

  Canon. con∣uertantur
• d 1.71

  durand. lib. 4
• e 1.72

  see D. sutl. de Miss. lib. 5. cap 16
• * 1.73

  Gener. vse 5.
• f 1.74

  christs peo∣ple must re∣ceiue the supper vnder both kinds.
• g 1.75

  cone. Trident sess. 21, cap 2
• h 1.76

  Math, 26, 26 27
• i 1.77

  Math. 19, 6
• k 1.78

  Math. 26, 27 Mar. 14, 23 1 cor. 12, 13
• l 1.79

  1 cor. 14. 37
• m 1.80

  Gal. 3, 15 Heb. 9. 16, 17
• n 1.81

  Luk, 22, 20
• o 1.82

  Math, 26, 28 Luk. 22, 20.
• p 1.83

  1 cor. 11, 23
• q 1.84

  1 cor. 11. 26.
• r 1.85

  1 cor, 11, 28
• s 1.86

  1 cor. 10, 4
• t 1.87

  bellar. lib. 4 de euchar. C. 27
• u 1.88

  exod. 16, 21
• a 1.89

  Iosh. 5. 12
• b 1.90

  Luk. xi, 52
• c 1.91

  Obiections for taking the cup from the people of god
• d 1.92

  rhem. test. vpon Math. xxvi, & Mar. 14
• e 1.93

  Math, xvvi•• 17, 18
• f 1.94

  Exod, xii, 4
• g 1.95

  Exod, 12. 6
• h 1.96

  Ioh. 13, 1 cum, 18. 28
• i 1.97

  Exod. xii 4. 5
• k 1.98

  Arist, bistor animal, lib, 6 cap, xxvii plini. hist. na∣tur, lib. 8 Cap 48
• l 1.99

  Exod. xii. x
• m 1.100

  Math, xxvi 30
• n 1.101

  Ioh. 19 xxvi 27.
• o 1.102

  1 cor, 1, 2
• p 1.103

  1 cor. xi, 26
• * 1.104

  Obiect 2.
• q 1.105

  act, 2, 42, & xx, 7
• * 1.106

  Answer.
• r 1.107

  Esa, 58, 7 Lam, 4, 4 Math, 15. 33 Luk. 24. 30 act. 20. xi
• s 1.108

  1 cor. 12, 13
• t 1.109

  Act. 20, 7
• u 1.110

  1 cor. 11, 26 27, 28, 29
• a 1.111

  1 cor. 11. 20 29, 33
• * 1.112

  Obiect. 3
• b 1.113

  concomi∣tantia.
• * 1.114

  Answer.
• d 1.115

  Gal. 3, 27
• e 1.116

  Heb. 3, 14. 15 Eph. 3, 17
• f 1.117

  Col, 1. 19, & 2. 3, 9
• g 1.118

  Math. 26 27, 28,
• h 1.119

  Heb. 9, 12
• i 1.120

  Concil. Trid sess. 3, can. 3
• k 1.121

  arist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cap. 2. & 3
• * 1.122

  partic. vse. 1
• l 1.123

  Bellar. lib. 4 de Eucha. cap. V,
• m 1.124

  Exod. xii. 8, xviii.
• n 1.125

  Gregor. i, in Registr.
• o 1.126

  concil. Flo∣rent. sess. vlt
• p 1.127

  1 cor, x, xvi
• * 1.128

  part. vse. 2
• r 1.129

  Rhem. Test. fol. 452 nu. 23
• s 1.130

  Barthol. Ca∣ranza sum. con¦cil. Florent 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 458
• t 1.131

  polid. Virg. de inuentor. rerum lib. 5, cap, 9
• u 1.132

  Math, 26. 29
• a 1.133

  Papists are neere of kin to the old he∣reticks called 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.134

  Matt. 21, 23
• c 1.135

  1 cor. xi, 23
• d 1.136

  Math. 17. 5
• e 1.137

  Cyprian epist. 74