The summe of Christian religion: deliuered by Zacharias Vrsinus in his lectures vpon the Catechism autorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolued the questions of whatsoeuer points of moment, which haue beene or are controuersed in diuinitie. Translated into English by Henrie Parrie, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supplie of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of diuinitie, and with correction of sundrie faults & imperfections, which ar [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latine.

OF THE LORDS SVPPER.

THE chiefe questions.

• 1 What the Supper of the Lord is.
• 2 What are the ends thereof, or, where∣fore it was instituted.
• 3 What is differeth from Baptisme.
• 4 What is the sense and meaning of the words of the institution.
• 5 What is the difference betweene the Lords Supper and the Papists Masse.
• 6 What is the right vse of the Supper,
• 7 What the wicked receiue in the Supper.
• 8 Who are to come and to be admitted vnto the Supper.

1 WHAT THE SVPPER OF THE LORD IS.

FIrst we wil see, by what names the Supper of the Lorde is called▪ then wee wil in few woordes define what it is. This action, or ceremony, or rite instituted by a Christ a lit∣tle before his death is called, A supper, from the first instituti∣on of it: that is, in respect of the originall or first beginning of this rite, or in respect of the time wherein this ceremo∣ny was instituted, which circumstance of time the church hath chaunged. Jt is likewise called Synaxis, that is, a con∣uent, in respect of the assembly and conuent of the church, be∣cause some, either few, or many assemble and meete toge∣ther, in celebrating of the supper. For in the first celebrati∣on the Disciples were present; Take this, and diuide it among you. Wherefore it must needs be that there was some num∣ber there; which also appeareth by the Apostle repeating the first institution. 1. Cor. 11. where in the end he addeth, When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And further

that moe ought to come together to celebrate the supper, this end of the supper doth euidently enough shew, in that it was instituted to be a token and euen a bond of loue. For we that are many, are one bread, and one bodie. It is called also the Eucharist, because it is a rite and ceremony of thankes∣giuing. Last of all, it is called also a sacrifice, because it is the commemoration of christs propitiatory benefit. And at length it was also called Missa, frō the offering, or from the dimissing of the rest who might not communicate, after the sermō which went before the celebration was finished.

Now let vs come to define the Lords Supper.

THE Lords supper is a ceremonie or sacrament instituted and appointed of christ vnto the faithfull, for a memorial of him, whereby christ dooth certainly promise and seale vnto mee and all the faithfull, first that his body was offered and broken on the crosse for mee, and his bloode shed for me, as truely, as I see with my eies the bread of the Lord to be broken vnto me, and his cup distri∣buted: and moreouer that hee doth as certainlie with his body cru∣cified and his blood shed feed and nourish my soul vnto euerlasting life, as my body is fed with the bread & the cup of the lord receiued from the hand of the minister, which are offered to me as certaine seales of the body & blood of Christ. It may be also more briefly defined on this wise. The lords supper is a distributing & recei∣uing of bread and wine, commaunded of Christ vnto the faithfull, that by these signes he might testifie, that hee hath deliuered and yeelded his body vnto death, and hath shedde his bloode for them: and dooth giue them those thinges to eate and drinke, that they might be vnto them the meate and drink of eternall life, and that thereby also he might testifie, that he would dwel in them for euer: And againe, that of the otherside hee might by the same signe bind them to mutuall dilection and loue, seeing Christ spareth not to giue his body and bloode for vs. This is confirmed not onely by Christ in the Euangelistes, but also by Paul, who expre∣sly saith, The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the commu∣nion of the bloud of Christ?

Moreouer, the signes in this sacrament are, bread and wine: bread broke and eat; wine distributed and taken. The things signified are, 1. The breaking of the body, and the shedding of the bloud of Christ. 2. Our vnion and coniunction with christ by faith, so that wee drawe life euerlasting from him, and are made

partakers, as of Christ himselfe, so also of all his benefites; as the branches are made partakers of the life of the vine. Wee are aduertised of this our communion with christ, First, by the proportion which the signes haue with the thinges, and Secondly by the promise which is adioyned. And the proportion dooth chief•••• propose and shewe two things vnto vs 1. The sacrifice of Christ. 2. Our communion with christ, because the bread is not only broken, but is also gi∣uen vs to eate. Now the breaking of the bread is a part of the ceremony, whereunto a part of the thing signified dooth aunswere This difference doth Paul testifie, when he saith: This my body which is broken for you Heere rec••iuing and ea∣ting is a part of the ceremony, whereunto doo••h aunswere the thing signified, ••o wit, the eating of christes body. Now this diuine and spirituall thing, namely the breaking and communicating of christes body, is signed and confirmed by this ceremony which is the breaking and receiuing of bread, for two causes. 1. Because Christ commandeth these rites vnto which we ought to giue no lesse credite, than if Christ him∣selfe did speake with vs. 2. Because hee annexeth a promise, that they who obserue these rites with a true faith must be assured and certaine that they haue communion with Christ. Wine is added, that wee should know the perfection and accomplishment of our saluation to be in his sacrifice, & that there was no∣thing which could be further desired. The wine is seuered from the breade▪ to signifie the violence of his death, be∣cause his bloud was sundered from his body.

2 What are the ends of the Lords supper.

THE ends, for which the Lords supper was instituted, are, 1. That it might bee a c••nfirmation of our faith, that is, a most certaine testification of our communion and vnion with christ; because Christ testifieth vnto vs by these signs, that hee doth as verily feede vs with his bodie and bloud vnto euerlasting life, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wee receiue, at the hand of the mi∣nister, these the Lords signes. And this testification is di∣rected to euerie one who receiueth the signes with a true faith: and furder also wee so receiue the signes at the mini∣sters hand, as that rather the Lord himselfe giueth them vs by his m nisters. Wherefore christ is saide to haue baptised moe disciples, than Iohn, when yet hee did it by his Apostles,

and other disciples. 2. That it might bee a publique distinction, or marke, discerning the church from all other nations and secte••. For the Lord instituted and appointed his supper for his disciples, and not for others. 3. That it might be our testifica∣tion to christ and the whole church: Which is a publique con∣fession of our faith, and a solemne binding of our selues to thankefulnes and the celebration of this benefite. Both which are prooued by these wordes of christ: Doe this in re∣membrance of me. This remembrance is taken first, for faith in the heart; then for thankesgiuing and our publique con∣fession. 4. That it might be a bond of the churches assemblies and meetings: because the Supper was instituted that it should be done and celebrated in a congregation, and that either great or small. Therefore the Supper (as was said before) is called a conuent: and Christ expresly commaundeth, Drinke yee all of this. Likewise Paul, When yee come together to eate, staie one for another. 5. That it might bee a bond of mutual loue and dilection: because the Supper testifieth, that all are made the members of christ vnder one heade: as also Paul saith: For we that are manie are one bread and one bodie, because we are all partakers of one bread.

Of this which hath beene spoken, wee gather that the Lordes Supper ought not to bee celebrated by one onely. 1. Because it is a communion, and the signe of our communion. 2. Because it is a thankesgiuing, and all ought to giue thankes vnto God, and by consequent, hee that thinketh himselfe vnworthy to communicate with others in the Lordes Sup∣per, doth withall confesse himselfe not to bee fitte to giue thankes vnto God. 3. Because christ together with his benefits, is not proper to anie, but common to all. 4. Christ called all his housholde vnto it, euen Iudas himselfe. 5 That some abstaine from comming to the supper, it commeth of a certaine euil and corrupt motion, because they thinke them selues not woorthie inough to approche vnto this table. All are worthy who be∣leeue themselues to bee deliuered by Christ from eternall damnation, and desire to profite and goe forward in god∣linesse. In summe; if the Supper bee receiued by one one∣ly, th t is done against the vse, appellation, institution, and nature of the sacrament.

Obiection. Christ, in the word of the Institution of his supper,

putteth as the principal end of his supper, his remembrance: there∣fore the confirmation of faith must not be made the principal end of his supper. Aunswere. The reason foloweth not, to the de∣nial of a part, by putting the whole. For the remembrance of Christ is the whole, wherein is comprised both our con∣fession, and our solemne bond to thankefulnesse, and also the confirmation of our faith. Wherefore rather by inuer∣ting the reason I thus inferre and conclude: because the re∣membrance is the supper, therefore it is the confirmation of our faith: and because also Christ proposeth vnto vs that ceremonie or rite, which must bee vnto vs a remembrance of him, he doth verily propose also a confirmation of our faith which is nothing else, but a remembraunce of Christ, and his benefites. Obiection. The holie ghost confirmeth our faith. Therefore the supper doth not. Aunswere. The reason foloweth not, to the remouing of an instrumental cause by the putting of a principal cause.

3 What the supper differeth from Baptisme.

THE supper differeth from baptisme, 1. Jn ceremonies or rites. 2. In the circumstances of the institution and vse, or in the significations of the ceremonies. Baptisme is a signe of the couenant entered and made betweene God & the faithfull. The supper is a signe of the continuing of that couenant. Or, baptisme is a signe of regeneration and of our entrance into the church. The supper is a signe of their fostering, abiding, and preseruation, who are once entered into the church. The new man must first be borne by the spirite of Christ, as is a natural man by natural con∣ception: and the signe of his renewing or regeneration is baptisme. Afterwards, when he is once renewed and borne again, he must be fostered and nourished by the bodie and bloude of Christ, the signe of which nourishing is the sup∣per. Now it is one and the same Christ who both regenera∣teth, and nourisheth vs to eternal life.

And albeit it is the same participation of christ, namely both the Washing away of sins by the bloud of christ, which is represented in Baptisme: and the Eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ which is confirmed vnto vs in the Supper: yet notwithstanding that signification of our new birth is sealed by the dipping of our bodie into the

water of Baptisme: and this of our maintenance and pre∣seruation is d••painted and sealed, by the eating and drink∣ing of bread and wine, in the Supper. And therefore the thing signified of the sacramentes is not diuerse because it is the same, to bee washed with the bloud of christ, and to drinke the bloud of Christ. But the manner of sealing one and the s••me thing, is diuerse. 3 In baptisme is required con∣fession of faith and repentance in the Elder sort; in Jnfants it is sufficient, if they be borne in the church: seing they that are born in the Church are therefore reputed for regenerate, or members of the church, because they haue an inclination to faith & repentance. But in the supper is added a further con∣d ti••n of examining himselfe, and of remembring the Lords death. Doe this in remembraunce of mee. Let a man examine himselfe. Baptisme therefore is due vnto the whole Church: vnto in∣fants, who are the children of faithfull Parents, no lesse than the elder sort enrolling themselues and giuing their names to Christ. The supper is graunted to such onely as are beleeuers and repentaunt. 4. Baptisme must goe before and the supper follow: Whereupon in the auncient church after the Sermno, w••re dimissed such as were excommunicated, likewise those that were possessed or troubled with an euill spirite, and the Catechumens, that is, such as old not as yet vnderstand the g••ounds and principles of r••ligion, or were not as yet baptised. So of old, they who were not yet circumcised did not obserue the sacrifices or ceremonies. Nowe if they who were baptised, before they haue made conf••ssion of their faith and repentaunce▪ are not as yet to bee admitted vnto the supper: much lesse are they, who being baptised liue after the manner of swine and dogges. 5. Baptisme is not to bee rei••erated, but once onely to bee receiued in our life time: The supper is often to be receiued of vs: Because baptisme is a signe of our receiuing into the church, and couenaunt; and the couenaunt once made, is not againe vndoone or made voide to those that repent, but remai∣neth ratified and firme for euer. The supper is a confirma∣tion of our faith concerning the eternall continuance of the couenant: which confirmation is necessary, and there∣fore the supper is often to be iterated. Hereof it is, that the Apostle saith of the supper. As often as ye shall eat this bread,

and drinke this cup, yee shew the Lords death til he come. But of baptisme he saith, That al wee which haue beene baptized into christ, haue beene baptized into his death. And Christ, Hee that shal beleeue, and shal be baptised, shal be saued. And seeing also the supper was therefore to be instituted, that in it shoulde be made a publique remembrance, recounting, & shewing of Christs death, it is often to be celebrated.

6 What is the sense or meaning of the words of the institution of our Lordes supper.

HEre are both those very odious questions conteined concerning the sense of Christes woords in his supper. The Transubstantiaries together with the Consubstantia∣ries doe bost and glorie, that they vnderstand the woords of Christ simply and aright. But neither perfourme that, which they brag and boast of. For that is the true simplici∣ty and propriety of the woord, whereunto, for the iust vn∣derstanding and interpretations thereof, nothing is to bee added, neither ought to be taken from it, neither any thing altered. For as many as hold that the body of Christ is With, Jn, or Vnder the breade, they adde vnto the woordes of Christ, and depart from true simplicity. For if that which Christ said is simply to be reteined, that is not to be admitted which he said not, as is, The bread is both bread and the body of Christ; but simply this only, The bread is the body of christ. He said not, My body is with, or in, or vnder the bread▪ or, the bread is both bread and my body together: neither added he, as these ad of their owne, really, substantially, corporally; but he vttered these bare words of the bread, This is my body. Neither haue the Traunsubstantiaries their opinion drawen from the woordes of Christ simply vnderstoode, namely, that of the bread is made the body of Christ, or, the bread is chaunged into the bodie of Christ. For this is their owne forgery, and inuention. For Christ said not, That the bread was now made, or was a making, or should be made, but simply said, The bread is his body: where no chaunge coulde come betweene, so that the words of christ be simply vnderstood. Therefore false∣ly doe they persuade the people, that they simply rest on the propriety of christes woords, when as manifoldly and most farre they swarue and depart from it. Wherefore the true sense and meaning of the woordes is diligently to be

considered. The holy Euangelistes Matthew, Marke, and Luke doe most specially of al others describe the instituti∣on of the Lords supper, and besides them the Apostle also declareth it no lesse plainly and luculen••ly; who thus spea∣keth, 1. Corint. 11. vers. 23.24.25.26. I haue receiued of the Lord, that which J also haue deliuered vnto you, that the Lord Iesus in the night that he was betraied, tooke bread: And when he had gi∣uen thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eate: this is my body which is broken for you; this doe yee in remembraunce of me. After the same maner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my bloud: this doe as oft as yee drinke it, in r••membrance of me. For as often as ye shal eate this bread & drink this cup, ye shew the Lords death til he come. These words of the Apostle we wil briefly expound, and then we will de∣monstrate them by true and firme arguments.

In the night that he was betraied. This circumstance is spe∣cified by the Apostle, to giue vs to vnderstande, that Christ would at the last supper of the Passeouer institute this his supper, to shew, 1. That now an end was made of al the old sacrifi∣ces, & he did substitute a new sacrament, which should s••cceed, & should be obserued that Paschal sacramēt being abolished. 2. That the same thing might be signified, difference only of time excepted. For the Paschal Lamb signified Christ which should come and should be sacrificed; The supper, Christ already sacrifi∣ced. Obiection. But when the supper was instituted, Christ was yet to be sacrificed. Aunswere. But then was at hand the offe∣ring vp and sacrificing of Christ: For a few houres after, he was sacrificed, and the supper was from that time forward to signifie christ sacrificed. 3. That he might stir vp in his Dis∣ciples, and in vs greater attention and marking of the cause, for which he did institute it, and that we might vnderstand how ear∣nestly Christ would haue this supper to bee recommended vnto vs: seeing he did nothing before his death, but that which was of most weight and moment. Therefore did he in the very point or in∣staunt before his death institute it. For it is as it were the testament, and last wil of our testatour: For which cause it is added, In the same night that he was betraied.

Hee tooke bread: That is, vnleauened bread, nor leauened, which then they did eat of at the table. The institution of the Supper, and Vnleauened bread did concur then toge∣ther

and fall out by an accident: and therefore he prescri∣bed not any certaine manner of baking bread for the lords supper. Yet notwithstanding the bread of the Lords supper dif∣fereth from common bread: because this is taken for the nou∣rishment of the bodie; but that for the foode and nourish∣ment of the soul, that is, for the confirmation of our faith. And here wee are to note, that he is saide to haue taken bread from the table. Hee tooke not his bodie therefore: neither tooke hee his bodie in the bread, with the bread, or vnder the bread.

When hee had giuen thankes. He gaue thanks for his office now performed and finished on earth (his last act yet re∣maining to bee done) that thus it had pleased the Father to redeeme mankind, or that the typicall passouer was abo∣lished, and the signified passouer was now exhibited, or last∣ly, hee gaue thankes for the admirable and wonderfull ga∣thering and preseruing of the church.

Hee brake it. That is, he brake the bread, which hee tooke from the table, & distributed the same, being one, amongst many; not any other inuisible thing hidden in the bread. He brake not his bodie, but the bread, as S. Paul saieth. The bread which we breake, &c. Now he distributed the bread, be∣ing one, among many, because wee that are many are one bodie. But the cause, for which hee brake this bread, was to signifie his passion and the separation of his bodie from his soul. Wherefore the breaking of bread is a necessarie ceremo∣nie, both in respect of the signification, & in respect of our confirmation, and therefore is this ceremonie also to bee reteined. 1. Because Christ hath commaunded it. 2. For our owne comfort: that we may knowe, the bodie of Christ to haue beene as certainly crucified for vs, as we see the bread to bee broken. 3. That the opinion of transubstantiation and consubstantiation may be pulled out of mens mindes.

Take. This commandement belongeth to the disciples, and to the whole Church of the new Testament. Whence it is cleare and manifest, 1. That the masse is not the Supper of the Lord, but a priuate supper of him that sacrificeth. 2. That we must not be idle beholders of the supper, but religious receiuers of it. 3. That the lords supper is not to be celebrated, but in an assem∣bly or congregation. 4. That the supper is a signe in respect of God.

This is my body. This, that is, this bread. Obiection. Then should it haue been said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aunswere. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as if he had said, this thing which I haue in my hand.

And that it is so to bee vnderstoode is prooued by these reasons, 1. Christ tooke nothing but bread, hee brake bread, and gaue bread to his disciples to eate. 2. Saint Paul saith expresly, The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of ••hrist? 3. Of the Wine it is said, This cup is the new testament. Wherefore after the same manner is it saide, This, that is, this bread, is my bodie, that is, a signe of my bodie, which is broken and deliuered vnto death. Wherefore farre be it from vs, that we should say, that Christ took bread visiblie, and his bodie inuisiblie. It is to be obserued, that hee saith not, Jn this is my bodie: or, this bread is my bodie inuisible: but, This bread is my bodie.

Which for you; My Disciples, that is, for your saluation.

Is broken. Obiection. But Christes bodie neither was, nor is broken. Aunswere. Hee hath a respect to the signification, which the breaking of the breade did import. Nowe this breaking signifieth the paines, and renting of Christes bo∣die, and the violent sundering of his soule and bodie one from the other. For as the bread is broken and parted into diuers partes, so the soule and bodie of Christ were separa∣ted and parted from each other.

Do this. That is, Being gathered & assembled together, take bread, giue thankes, distribute it. Hee vnderstandeth the whole action which hee commaundeth, and that to vs which beleeue, and not the Iewes, who were ready to crucifie him.

In remembraunce of me That is. Thinking and meditating of my benefites, which I haue done for you, and which are by these rites recalled into your memory; and further veri∣ly feeling and finding in heart, that I giue you these my be∣n••fites: and therefore celebrating them by publique con∣fession before God, and Angels, yea before men also, and so giuing me thankes for them. This remembraunce is the whole, whose partes are, the memory of christes benefites; faith, whereby we apply christ & his merit vnto vs; thank∣fulnesse, or publique confession of his benefits. Wherefore it followeth not, Christ did institute his supper for a re∣membraunce

of him; therefore he did not institute it for confirmation of our faith. For this obiection is no lesse fri∣uolous. than if I should say, The holy Ghost confirmeth our faith: Therefore the supper doth not. For, as it hath beene said before, the reason followeth not to the remoouing of the instrumentall cause, by the putting of the principall cause: as neither dooth it follow to the deni••l of a pa••••, by the putting of the whole. For Remembrance compriseth the remembring of christes benefites, faith, and thanksgiuing. For by his sacramentes christ remembreth vs of himselfe, and his benefites, and by his sacraments he raiseth and e∣stablisheth in vs our trust and confidence in him. And fur∣ther of that remembraunce of christes benefites, it must follow, that wee also yeelde thankes vnto him therefore publiquely.

This cup is the new testament. Or, the couenant, as both the greeke, and Hebrue word admitteth. Now it is called the new couenant, that is, renewed, or (to speake it in a woord) fulfilled. And this new couenant is our reconciliation with God, the communion and participation of Christ and all his benefites by faith in the sacrifice of Christ now fulfilled & finished, without any obseruation of the ceremonies of the old Passeouer. The supper is called the new couenāt, because it is a signe and a seale of this couenant, signing and sea∣ling vnto vs our reconciliation with God, and our coniun∣ction with Christ which is wrought by faith. Now in calling the supper the new couenant, first he comprehendeth both the pro∣mise, and the condition which is expressed in the promise, namelie faith and repentance: Whereof also it foloweth, that the sup∣per was for this cause also instituted, that it might bee a bond to bind vs to lead a christian life. Secondly, hee ma∣keth an opposition betweene the new couenant, and that couenant which was the Passeouer, together with the rites thereof. For the supper signified Christ offered. The Passeouer signified Christ who should bee offered. There is notwithstanding no small similitude and agreeing of both. For both signifie our re∣conciliation with God, and coniunction with Christ.

J•• my bloud: which is shed for you for remission of sinnes. The shedding of Christs bloud is the merite for which, beeing apprehended of vs by faith, we receiue remission of sinnes.

For as often as yee shall eate. The supper therefore is often to be iterated and celebrated. 1. Because of the woordes of the institution. 2. In respect of the ende and purpose of the institution; because it must bee done in remembranuce of Christ.

Shewe the Lordes death. That is, beleeue that Christ died, and that for you: and then, professe it also publiquely be∣fore all.

Till hee come. Therefore it must bee obserued vnto the worlds end: neither is any other externall forme to be loo∣ked for vntill the day of iudgement.

The words of the institution, which haue beene hitherto expounded, may be made more plaine and cleare by these wordes of the Apostle. The cup of blessing, which we blesse, is it not the communion of the bloude of Christ? The bread which wee breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of Christ? The cup of blessing: that is, the cup of thankesgiuing, which is receiued namely to this end, that wee may yeeld thankes to Christ for his death and passion. The communion of the bodie, like∣wise, the communion of the bloud, is, to be made through faith partaker of Christ and all his benefites, the same spirit be∣ing in vs, which is in Christ, and woorking the same in vs, which he worketh in Christ. Bread and wine is the communion, that is, it is the signe of our communion with Christ. Now our communion, as the Apostle briefly declareth, consisteth in this: that wee who are manie, are one bodie. Whence it is most easie to collect, that this communion is not a corporall eating. For it is wrought onely by faith and the holy Ghost. Christ is the heade, and wee the members, and all wee, who are members, haue also a communion of all Christs benefites. Therefore the heade is common, the benefites common, and so the members also common among themselues; wherefore their loue and dilection is common and mutual.

We vnderstand nowe what is the true meaning of the words of the institution, especiallie of those about which is greatest cōtrouersy; which are these. This is my body; that is, (to repeat in few wordes the true sense of them) This bread broken of me and giuen to you, is a signe of my bodie for your sakes rent and deliuered vnto death, and a certaine seale of your coniun∣ction with me, so that he who beleeueth and eateth this bread, doth

truelie and reallie after a sort eat my bodie. This our iudgement and interpretation, or Christs rather, is most true, and vn∣to the truth of the Gospell most agreeable. Here especially resist••unce is made, and the greatest controuersie is about the word or vnderstanding of the word.

For our aduersaries vnderstand those wordes so, as t••ey maintaine thereof to folow, that Christes bodie is present and eaten corporallie. But in the meane season they consider not that those wordes are sacramentallie to bee taken, or that the speech is sacramental, and therefore is not to be taken as proper and simple, as it shoulde bee, if thence were ga∣thered, that the bread is changed into Christs bodie. Now to the signe here is attributed the name of the thing signi∣fied, both for the coniunction which the thing signified hath, in the right vse of the supper, with the signe, and also for the proportion which the signe hath with the thing sig∣nified.

Come wee now to those arguments, whereby wee may confirme our interpretation and opinion to bee true. The arguments, which wee will vse, are of three sorts, such as are wont to bee also in like controuersies. 1. Some are taken from the nature of the thing or subiect, that is, by vnderstan∣ding the speech as the thing it selfe doth beare and suffer. 2. Some are drawen from an analogie of the articles of our faith, or from a conference of places, or parts of christian doctrine: for the holy spirite is the spirite of truth. 3. Some are taken from other like places of scripture, where the same thing is de∣liuered in such words as are manifest, and whereof there is no controuersie.

The first sort of Arguments, which are taken from the nature of the sacraments.

THE verie manner and forme of speaking yeeldeth vs a firme and strong argument: Breade is the bodie of Christ: but bread is not in it owne proper substance his bodie: (for by reason hereof haue they inuented consubstantiation) therefore it is a figuratiue speeche, euen such a one as is vsual vnto sacra∣ments, and is declared in the institution.

2 Sacraments confirme, exhibit, promise, seale no other thing than the woorde doth: In the woorde is promised no corporal eating.

Therefore neither is anie such thing confirmed by the sacrament.

3 In all sacraments, when the names or properties of the things are attributed vnto the signes, there is not signified the cor∣poral presence of the thing, but first, a similitude of the things with their signes, then a coniunction and vnion of the things with their signes in the right vse: but in this sacrament Christ attributeth the name of the thing, which is his bodie, to the signe: therefore there is not thereby signified a corporal presence of his bodie.

4 The communion of Christ, which is promised in his woorde and sacraments, is not corporal: but the communion of Christ, which is giuen in the supper, is the same with that which is giuen in the word and in all sacraments: therefore the communion of Christ in the supper is spiritual.

5 There is one and the same signification of all the Sacra∣ments of the old and new testament. This is manifest, because in all the promises the same benefits are promised vnto vs, which are promised in the sacraments. The sacraments are the visible woorde; and the sacraments promise the same which doth the word. But in the Gospell is deliuered a communion which is wrought by faith. That there is the same signification of the sacramentes of both Testaments, the Apostle sheweth, 1. Cor. 12.13. By one spirite are wee all baptized into one bodie. And 1. Cor. 10.2.3. All were baptized vnto Moses in the cloude, and in the sea, and did all eate the same spiritual meate. Obiection. There is not the same thing signified of all sacramentes. For in baptisme, the thing is the washing by the bloud of Christ, in the supper, the bodie and bloud of Christ. Aunswere. The thing is not diuers, because it is the same, to bee washed by the ••••••ud of Christ, and to drink the bloud of christ. But the manner of signifiyng one and the sme thing is diuers, that is, there is a diuers simi∣litude of one and the same thing signified by the signes, or, one and the same thing hath a diuers similitude or propor∣tion. Therefore as in baptisme so in circumcision likewise and the Passeouer is promised a spiritual thing, not a cor∣poral: and so also here in the Lords supper.

6 The nature of all sacraments is, that the signes bee vnder∣stood corporallie, that the things signified must be taken spiritually, and that the visible things be not the signified thinges, but onelie signes and pledges of them.

7 The conceit of a corporal presence of Christ vnder the bread

is wholie different and diuers from the formal consideration of a sa∣crament. Therefore it is to be rejected. The antecedent is pro∣ued: because it cannot bee accounted either for the signe, or the thing signed. It is not the signe or sacrament because it is not obiect vnto the senses. And further, it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing, that is, with the spiritual eating. Neither can it be said to be the thing signed, seeing the scripture no where prea∣cheth of an essentiall transfusion, and real commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies, neither can there be anie, except wee enter∣taine the follies and dreames of Eutychians and Schuenkfeldians. For the sacraments testifie of those blessings onelie, and them onlie doe they seale vnto vs, which are conteined in the promise of the Gospel. Therefore no place is left for a substantial presence of the bodie in the bread, as being altogether fruitles and vnprofitable.

8 Sacramentes or signes ought to bee visible, so that it deser∣ueth not (saith Erasmus) to be called a sacrament, which is not accomplished by an external signe. For to this end and vse are they giuen of god, that they may effectuallie shew as it were to our out∣ward senses, that which is promised in the word, and performed by the holie Ghost in our hearts, that they may be visible testimonies & pledges of the promise of grace exhibited & applied. Whence is that saying of Austin: A sacrament is a visible woord: it is a visible forme of an inuisible grace. Therefore no thing or action, which is inuisible, insensible, and not natural, can make the na∣ture or appellation of a sacrament. And consequentlie, they who wil haue christs flesh to be in, vnder, or with the bread, or wil haue the bread to be transubstantiated into his flesh, let them shew vs a visible and sensible eating of it in the supper, least they seeme to dissent from the auncient fathers.

9 There must bee an analogie and proportion betweene the signe or sacrament, and the thing signified, or the thing of the sa∣crament: f••r except the sacraments (saith Austin) had some si∣militude of those things whereof they are sacraments, they were not verilie anie sacraments. Nowe if christs flesh bee also a sacrament, and the thing of these sacraments bee inuisible grace: what propor∣tion then and similitude shal there be between the two sacraments? But seeing there can be none, it foloweth that christs flesh may not be called a sacrament, as being no lesse the thing it selfe of the sa∣crament, than eternal saluation, signified, by way of proportion, by visible breade, as by a signe. Wherefore the sacramentall eating,

which is done naturallie by the mouth, dooth not belong vnto the bodie of Christ considered by it selfe, in anie Physical or natural respect: because vnto this sacramental eating the external signes onelie are obiect in their own nature. Saint Austin demaunding how bread is the bodie of Christ, and wine his bloud; these (saith he) brethren are therefore called sacramentes, because in them, one thing is seene, and an other thing vnderstood. That which is seene, hath a corporall forme; that which is vnderstood, hath a spiritual fruite. If then thou wilt vnderstand the bodie of Christ, heare the Apostle speaking to the faithful: Ye are the bo∣die of Christ and his members. Jf then yee bee the bodie of Christ, and his members, your mysterie is set on the table, &c.

These are the Argumentes deduced out of the nature of the thing or subiect, which is, by vnderstanding the speech as the thing doth beare and permit.

The second sort of arguments, which are deduced from the analogie of faith.

FIRME and strong reasons are drawen, from the article which is concerning the truth of Christs humane nature.

1 Christ tooke a true humane nature, like vnto vs in all things, except sinne. This nature therefore cannot bee in moe pla∣ces at one and the same time, and therefore neither can it be toge∣ther in heauē & in the bread: because it is proper vnto the nature of God onely, to be at once in diuerse places. Christes body is finite, as being a true body: but it is now in heauen, as is proued out of the article of his ascension into heauen. Therefore Christs bodie is not in the bread. Many abuse this argument, omitting the first ground which is altogether true and necessarie. For glori∣fication doth not destroie or abolish the nature of his hu∣mane nature. Handle me and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as yee see me haue. While they beheld him, he was taken vp. 3. Jf the true and verie bodie of Christ be infinite, it is also inui∣sible and insensible. Therefore that which was seene, suffered and wrought on earth, was no true bodie, but apparent & phantastical: because it can not agree, no not to the Godhead it selfe, to bee at one time finite and infinite, sensible, and insensible: and so all those thinges, which are spoken of christ in the articles of our Beleefe should not haue beene done indeede, but onely should haue seemed

and appeared to be done, & so we should remaine as yet in death.

2 There are good arguments also deriued from the ar∣ticle which conteineth the communion of saints with christ. 1. Such is the communio•• of saintes with Christ now, as it was of olde, & shall be hereafter, and such also is the communion of those saints which vse the sacrament, as of them who are by necessity excluded from it. But such a communion of saints with Christ is spirituall, as the Apostle doth shew, 1. Cor. 6.17. Hee that is ioined vnto the Lorde is one spirit. 1. Ioh. 4.13. Hereby know we, that we dwel in him, and he in vs: because he hath giuen vs of his spirit. Iohn. 15.5. He is the vine, we are the branches. Ephes. 1.22. & 4.15. & 5.30.31. He is the Bridegroome, and we with the whole Church are his spouse. 2 Such is our eating of Christ, as is his abiding in vs: but this is spirituall. For that Christs abiding in vs is spiri∣tuall, is sufficientlie perceiued by this, in that such is his abiding in vs, as is his Fathers. Jf anie man loue me, he will keepe my woord, and my Father will loue him, and we will come vnto him, and will dwell with him. But how doth the Father dwell in vs, or abide with vs? Truely, by his spirite. Therefore Christ also so abideth with vs, or dwelleth in vs. 3 Christ abideth in vs perpetually: Therefore that abiding or presence is not corporall; because as touching his humane nature, he saith, Me yee shall not haue alwaies. Therefore hee is not eaten of vs corporallie, nay hee cannot be eaten of vs corporallie, except he be in vs corporally, and that also perpetuallie.

3 Vnto the former m••y be adioined also argumentes taken from the sacrifice and adoration: Wheresoeuer Christ is present corporallie, whether it be after a visible or inuisible man∣ner, there he is to be adored, to wit, by our mindes and the motions of our bodies cōuerted & turned thither: But he is not to be adored in the supper. Therefore he is not present in the supper corporally. That he is not to be adored in the supper, is easilie proued. For it is neuer granted in the new testament, to tie & bind inuoca∣tion to anie certain place. Ioh. 4.21. The houre commeth, when yee shal neither in this mountain, nor at Ierusalem worship the father. Againe, Jf christ be so be adored & worshipped in the supper, by our mindes and motions of bodie conuerted vnto the bread, that whole oblation & sacrifice should consist in the hands of sacrificing masse-Priests, because they offer the Son vnto the Father to obtain remission of sins; and so were his crucifieng to be reiterated.

The third sort of argumentes, which are drawen from like places of scripture, where namelie the same thing is deliuered in words, whereof there is no con∣trouersie.

1 COrporall eating is in expresse termes condemned by the holie Ghost. Jt is the spirite, saith Christ, that quicke∣neth, the flesh profiteth nothing: By these woordes Christ ex∣pressely condemneth the corporal eating of his flesh, whe∣ther visible, or inuisible.

2 The bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is the cō∣munion of the body of christ. But this cōmuniō is spiritual: because when the same Apostle opposeth it to the communion of diuels (ye cānot, saith he, drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of diuels: yee cannot be partakers of the lords table, and of the table of Diuels) by these words the Apostle denieth that the wicked can be partakers of the bodie and blood of christ in the supper. And therefore there is no corporall eating of the body and bloude of christ in his supper.

3 Christ saith that the bread is his bodie: Therefore they tie not themselues to the verie woorde, who say that christs body is in the bread, vnder the bread, with the bread.

4 The cup is the new testament, that is, the cup is a signe of the new testament: for it cannot bee otherwise meant or taken. For the new testament is the seale of the promise, or the promise it self, but not the thing promised. Likewise: The cup is the communion of the bloud of christ: The bread is the communion of the body of christ: But this communion is a spirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud of christ, as is apparaunt by the wordes of the Apostle: and the signes of that spiritual eating and drinking are bread and wine.

5 In the Euangelist, To eat christ, which is the liuing bread which descended from heauen: Likewise, To eat Christs flesh, and to drinke his bloud, signifieth to beleeue in Christ. Therefore in the words of the institutiō it signifieth the same also: because christ doth not here otherwise expound them.

6 There are also the like places of scripture vttered sacra∣mentally of other sacramentes, which confirme also the truth and meaning of this: as, Circumcision is the couenant: The lamb is the Passeouer; The leuitical sacrifices are said to be an expiati∣on

or doing away of sinne: The bloud of sacrifices is called the bloud of the couenant. Baptisme is the washing of the new birth: There∣fore these woords also, This is my bodie, are in like sort sacramen∣tally spoken.

7 Christ commaundeth his supper to bee celebrated, and the bread & wine to be eaten & drunken, in remembrance of him: but this remēbrance is chiefly performed by faith, not corporally. More∣ouer, that, in memorial wherof we doe any thing, is not it selfe pre∣sent, because we are not said to remember things that are present.

8 By one spirite are we al baptized into one bodie, whether we be Iewes or Grecians, whether we be bond or free: and haue been al made to drinke into one spirite. Wherefore after the same maner doe we al eate the same bread. Which Paul also manifestly she∣weth, affirming, That al the Fathers did eate the same spirituall foode. That eating therefore is not corporall, whereby we are made partakers of the body and bloud of christ: otherwise before the com∣ming of christ the fathers should not haue beene at al made parta∣kers of christ, as hauing not as yet taken flesh.

Vnto these argumentes drawen out of the sacred Scrip∣ture and the ground of our faith, may be added testimonies of the fathers and the purer church, of al which we will at this present bring only that one notable saying of Macha∣rius the Monke: Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh; and they who receiue the bread which is shewed, eate the flesh of Christ spirituallie.

AGAINST THE TRANSVBSTANTI∣ATION OF THE PAPISTES.

NOW it is easy to see what we are to thinke of Transub∣stantiation; euen that it is an impious inuention & de∣uise of the Papists: which also we wil shew and proue brief∣ly by diuers reasons.

1 Paul calleth expressely that, which is taken, bread, both be∣fore & after the eating: Therefore that which is taken in the sup∣per is not really the body.

2 Christ brake bread: but hee did not then breake his body: Therefore the bread is not really his body.

3 The Bread was not giuen for vs; But the body of christ was giuen for vs: Therefore the bread is not really Christs body.

4 Christ willeth vs to take this sacrament, and to take bread and wine, in remembraunce of him. Therefore the bread is called

the body of Christ, not reallie, but in that it is a memorial of his bo∣dy, that is, the bread is a remembrauncer vnto vs of christs body, e∣uen as also it is cōmanded in the words of the institution, Shew the Lords death til he come.

5 The Analogie & proportion of the sign & the thing doth manifestly enough refel transubstantiatiō. For in euery sacrament ar these two, the sign, & the thing signified: but the sign should pe∣rish if the bread should be transubstantiated, that is, if there shold be a change of the bread into christs body: for so should remaine the thing signified onlie, and not the signe, & therefore no sacrament.

O••iection. But the Accidents of bread and wine, doe still re∣maine, as whitenesse, softnesse, and such like. Aunswere. But so wil there not bee a proportion betweene the signe, and the thing signified, because accidents doe not nourish. You can not say, as the accidents of bread and wine nourish the bo∣dy, so the body of Christ nourisheth my soule vnto euerla∣sting life And further also, the promise of God would by this meanes be made voide and frustrate. For God promi∣sed that hee would giue the Messias, not of the substaunce of wheat and wine, but of the seede of Dauid, Reply. But we saie not that the bread and wine are conuerted into the substaunce of Christs bodie, but that the substaunce of the bread and wine va∣nisheth quite awaie, & in place thereof succeedeth the substance of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Aunswere. Of this bread christ speaketh, That it is his body, and the same bread both be∣fore, and in, and after the administration of it, is called bread. Christ saith not, this which is vnder the forme of bread, is my body: but he saith, this, that is, this bread, is my bodie. And Paul saith, The bread whith we breake, is the commu∣nion of the bodie of Christ: And againe, For we that are many, are one breade and one body. Againe, As often as yee shall eate this bread &c. And a little after, Whosoeuer shal eate this bread vn∣worthilie, &c. Moreouer; Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread. Wherefore it is plaine and euident that the substaunce of bread and wine neither is changed, neither perisheth, neither lieth hid vnder a forme, but re∣maineth stil the same bread and the same wine.

Nowe that there is no transubstantiation or conuersion of the substaunce of the breade and wine into the bodie of Christ, is thus prooued. If there bee anie transubstantiation,

christes institution is peruerted: for it abolisheth and bringeth to nothing the substaunce of the bread, which is the verie thing, that in this ceremony is the body of christ. For seing the bread is the body of Christ, then doubtlesse, if the bread remaine not, neither doth the bodie of christ remaine in the supper, and so christs woordes are no longer true, when hee saide that that bread is his bodie, and that wine his ••loud. The Tran∣substantiaries, if they be demaunded, what thing it i•• that they call the bodie of christ in the supper; certainely they will not aunswere, it is bread: for they haue no bread left in the supper, because it is transubstantiated: but they will send vs to the very substance of christs body absolutely cō∣sidered, couered on the altar with the accidentes of bread. Wherefore all they er who obiect and present the bodie of christ, beeing considered by it selfe in it own proper matter and subiect, to the external actions of the supper. These and the former reasons refell consubstantiation also; where∣fore neither wil we bring any moe reasons seuerally against it. Onely some certaine obiections of the Consubstantia∣ries themselues we will refute.

A refutation of obiections framed to confirme consubstantiation.

1 OBiection. Christ said, This is my bodie. But Christ is true. Therefore we must beleeue him, setting apart all Philosophicall subtiltie and sharpenes, and so by consequent, bread is not a signe of his bodie. Aunswere. Wee graunt their argument, if they prooue that Christ putteth this to bee his meaning, namely, that Jn, Vnder, and With the bread, is his bodie. Replie. But it is said here, This is my bodie. Aun∣swere. In other sacramentes also are the like speeches: as, The Paschal Lambe is called the Pass••ouer, Bap••isme the washing of the newe-birth, Circumcision the couenant. Replie. But we say not that the bread is the bodie of Christ reallie, as the Papists say, but that the bodie is in the bread. Aunswere. But in this respect the Papists seeme more to keep the word, whom yet the Apostle expressely refuteth, calling it bread both before the eating, and in the eating, and after the eating. 2. It is no where saide either by Christ or by Saint Paul, That the bodie of Christ is in the bread, vnder the bread, with the bread, neither any where in scripture is this expressed. But the true sense and meaning of those wordes

is expressed in the text it self: namely, that the bread is the bodie of Christ symbolically, that is, as a symbole or tokē of it. For in the text it is plainly said, Do this in remembrance of me. So Paul also calleth the bread, the communion of the bodie of christ. Wherefore the bread is the representing or symboli∣cal & signifieng body of christ. The bread is a sign of christs bodie, but not a couert wherein his bodie it self remaineth.

2 Obiection. Christ is omnipotent. Therefore his bodie may be there, and so, because he said it, it is there. Answere. The reason is of no force, which will conclude a thing to bee done, because it may bee done. Replie. Whatsoeuer is at the right hand of God is euerie where. Aunswere. It is false. For the sitting at the right hand of God signifieth the vni∣on of both natures in Christ, his power and rule, and ex∣cellencie of gifts. Now although he rule all thinges, yet is it not necessarie that hee shoulde bee present in bodie It is sufficient that his person is euery where, and is present in dignitie. As also hee sustained all thinges euen then, when hee hung on the Crosse, neither yet was his bodie euery where. Therefore to say, that christ sitteth at the right hand of the Father, signifieth that christ is the person by whom the Father mediately gouerneth & ruleth al things, especiallie the church. But no part of this Sitting is the vbiquitie of christs bodie: & it sufficeth that christs person is euery where.

3 Obiection. That which quickeneth and nourisheth vs, is receiued into vs, the bodie and bloud of christ doe quicken vs: therefore they are receiued into vs. Aunswere. The Maior is but meere particular, and therefore false in general for not whatsoeuer quickeneth and nourisheth vs, must necessarily be receiued into vs. That only must be receiued into vs ne∣cessarily, which quickneth & nourisheth naturally, that is, by a ioint-touching of our bodie. This meate, which so nourisheth vs after a naturall manner, dooth not nourishe vs, except thereby the substaunce of our bodie bee increa∣sed. But wee speake farre otherwise of the nourishing of the soule, which is spirituall. Christes bodie doth not at all nourish vs naturally: for it doth not being receiued into vs quicken vs, by working in vs new corporal qualities, like as a medicine dooth: but the bodie of christ nourisheth and quickeneth vs after a maner diuers from that natural nou∣rishing;

and accordingly as this manner of nourishing and quickening requireth, so receiue we christs bodie. The ma∣ner whereby christs bodie and bloud nourisheth vs, is, 1. The re∣spect of his merite. For, for vs christs bodie is giuen, and his bloud shed for vs, and for the bodie and bloud of christ wee haue eternal life giuen vnto vs. After this manner then the bodie and bloud of christ quickeneth vs, as it is a merit de∣seruing for vs this blessing. 2. His bodie and bloude quicke∣neth or nourisheth vs, when wee receiue that merite of christs bo∣die and bloud: that is, when we beleeue with a true faith that for it wee shall haue eternall life. This faith resteth and hangeth on christ hanging on the Crosse, not corporallie dwelling in vs. 3. It nourisheth vs, when the same spirite vni∣teth vs by faith vnto christ, and worketh the like in vs, which it doth in christ. For except wee be graffed into christ, wee doe not please God. For hee will on that condition receiue vs, and pardon vs our sinnes. So that by faith through the working of the holy Ghost, we bee ioined with christ, and engraffed into him. Seeing then this is the maner, where∣by the bodie and bloude of christ quicken and nourish vs, there is no need of any descending of the bodie and bloud of christ into our bodies.

4 Obiection. The eating of bread is done by the mouth: But the eating of the bodie is the eating of bread. Therefore the eating of the bodie is done by the mouth, and is corporall, when it is saide, Take and eate. Aunswere. This eating, whereof mention is made heere, is perfourmed by the mouth, not simplie, but as concerning the signe. But it is not doone by the mouth, but is spirituall, as concerning the thing signified & spirituall. Reply. This is my bodie, that is the inuisible bodie which J haue in my handes. Aunswere. But the bodie is the thing signified and spirituall, other-wise there will bee no proportion betweene the signe and the thing signified. It followeth therefore that hee saieth, The bread is my bodie: So that the bread is that whereof the bodie is affirmed. For in this speech the thing signified is affirmed of the signe.

5 Obiection. The Wordes are not to bee changed. Christ vsed the woord, Js; Therefore there may not be put in place there∣of the word, Signifieth. Aunswere. The woords are not to bee changed into another sense, than God wil haue. But other∣wise

they are often to be changed: As when it is said, Pluck out thine eie. For woords are to bee vnderstoode according to the nature of thinges. Moreouer they themselues, who accuse vs of change, doe more make this chaunge and mu∣tation than we. Reply. The bodie of christ was broken and cru∣cified for vs: not the signe of the bodie. Therefore the bread is the substantiall bodie of christ. Answ. I grant: for the bread signifi∣eth that very bodie, which was borne of Marie & crucified.

Question. Why then are the things signified attributed to the signes, and the signes called by their names, if neither consubstan∣tiation, nor transubstantiation bee thereby signified? Aunswere. There are two causes alleadged heereof: A similitude or likenesse, and a certainty. 1. The similitude or proportion of signes and the thing signified is, first: As the bread and wine nourish our body, so the body and bloud of christ nourish vs vnto e∣uerlasting life. Secondly, As the bread and wine are receiued by the mouth, so the body and bloud are receiued by faith. Thirdly, As the bread is eaten being broken, so the bodie of christ is receiued being sacrif ced and broken. Fourthly, As in corporall foode, is re∣quired an appetite vnto it, so also in this spiritual foode is requi∣red faith. Fiftly, As of many cornes is made one loafe, so are we be∣ing many made one bodie. Wherefore by reason of this simili∣tude of the signe and the thing signified, the thing signified is attributed vnto the signes. 2. The certainty of the signes in the cause likewise why that is aff••rmed of the signes, which is pro∣per vnto the thing signified. For the s••gnes testifie that christes sa∣crifice is accomplished, and for our behoofe and commodity: because it is certainly and truly applied vnto vs.

Here last of al is to be obserued, that the eating of christs body dooth comprise and comprehend, 1. Faith. 2. That by faith we are made partakers of christ, that is, we are vnited vn∣to Christ, and our communion is wrought by faith: and the holy Ghost is the bond of this our vnion and coniunction with Christ. 3. That wee are made partakers of Christs benefites, iustification, and remission of sinnes. And this ensueth of that vnion of Christ with vs. 4. Jt comprehendeth also the benefite of our regeneration, whereby we are made like and conformed vnto christ, because the same spirit dwelling in vs and in christ, worketh also the same things in vs. This eating is easily collected, as out of many other places, so also out of this saieng of christ.

I am the liuing bread which commeth downe from heauen; if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer. And the bread that I will giue, is my flesh, which I wil giue for the life of the world.

5 What is the difference betweene the Lords supper, and the popish Masse.

THIS question is necessary, by reason of errours which haue c••ept into the church. It is otherwise demanded, Why the Masse is to be abolished ••ut here this questiō is also conteined and comprehended: because these differences and contrarieties of the Lordes supper and the Masse, are the causes why the Masse is to bee abolished. First let vs speake a few woordes of the name of the Masse, or, Missa. The word Missa seemeth to haue his name from an ancient custome of Ecclesiastical rites & actions, in the end whereof leaue was giuen of departure to the Catechumenes, the posses∣sed with spirites, and the excommunicated persons: and so the woord Missa seemeth to be vsed, as it were a mission or sending awaie, because it was the last part of diuine seruice. Others wil haue it to be so called from a dimission, or from the manner of dimissing them; because they were demised with these words, ••te, Missa est, that is, go, you may depart: or, as others interprete it, goe, now is the collection or alms, which they will haue to be called Missa, of the sending it in (as we may so speak) or throwing or casting it in for the poore. Some wil therefore haue it deriued from the Hebrue Masah, that is, tributes, which was wont to be paied of euery one. The word is found Deut. 16.10. Missach, nidbath i••decha, A free gift of thine hand. Nowe that offering was called so, beeing as it were a yearely tribute, which yet was no exaction, but gi∣uen freely. Others interprete it to bee a sufficiency, which is, that there shoulde bee giuen so much as was sufficient, and perhaps this is the truer: because. Deut. 15. The Lord com∣maunded the Jsraelites, that they shoulde open their hande vnto the poore, and should lend him sufficient for his neede. This the Chaldee Paraphrast interpreteth to be Missah.

Hereof our men thinke that it was called Missa, as if it were a tribute, and free offering which shoulde bee euerie where offered vnto God in the church for the liuing and the dead. But this is not of any likelihood to be true. It is manifest indeede that the church hath borrowed some words from the Hebrews,

as, Satan, Osanna, Sabaot, Halleluia, Pascha, and such like. But those words came not to the Latin church, but by the greeke church, and those woordes are found in the greeke testament, when first it was written in greeke. And there∣fore we haue no Hebrue woords deriued vnto our Church, which the greeke church had not before vs. If also wee will search the greeke Fathers, the woorde Missa will neuer be found to haue bin vsed by them. Therefore I think not that the woord Missa was taken from the Hebrewes. But Missa, which doubtlesse is a latin woorde by original, seemeth to haue beene taken from the Fathers, who vsed Remissa, for Remissio, as Tertullian; We haue spoken, saith he, ofaremission of sinnes. And Cyprian: He that was to giuebremission of sinnes, did not disdaine to bee baptized. And againe hee vseth the same word: Hee that blasphemeth against the holie ghost, hath not re∣mission of sinnes. Wherefore as they said Remissa for Remissio, so they seeme also to haue said Missa for Missio. And there∣fore they called that Missa, which was don after the missiō or sending away of the catechuments. We reiect both the name and the thing. For this woorde dooth not agree vnto the Lords Supper; because the Lords Supper hath nothing com∣mon and agreeing with the name of Missa, albeit it was v∣sed of the auncient writers. Moreouer we haue no need of this name. For we haue other words for this pvrpose most con∣uenient and agreeable.

NOW let vs see the differences of the Supper & the Masse, & those most contrarie one to another, & such as in re∣spect whereof the Masse ought to be abolished.

1 The Popish Masse is a manifold, chaunging or abolishing rather of the rite instituted by Christ. For it taketh away the cup from the people, and addeth manie toies, when as notwithstanding no creature hath anie power to institute anie sacraments, or to change or abolish the constitutions and ordinances of God.

2 The Masse transformeth the signe into the thing signified. For it denieth that there is anie breade and wine remaining; but saith, it is the flesh and bloud of Christ substantiallie, which is flat repugnant to the nature of the Lords supper.

3 In the Masse the Papists make other heauenlie gifts to be, than which are found in the word and other sacraments, or in the promise annexed vnto them. As where the Masse-Priestes faigne

that the Masse doth merite, euen by the work it selfe wrought, that is through the external rite and action, both for him that celebra∣teth, and for others, not onelie remission of sinnes, but the healing also of men, oxen, swine, and cattle diseased. and so withall they coine this too, that forsooth those signs of bread and wine are a sa∣crament euen without the vse also and administration. Likewise they wil haue other things to be in the Masse, than are in anie sa∣crament, which is the very carnal descending & abiding of Christs bodie therein, which is contrarie to the nature of al sacraments.

4 The Masse is repugnant to the sacrifice of Christ: the sup∣per confirmeth and testifieth that we are iustified, for the alone sa∣crifice of Christ wrought and finished on the Crosse: but the Masse contrarie to the testimonies of scripture maketh moe propitiatorie sacrifices: this is their treading and trampling Christs bloud vnder foote, when they say it hath not merited perfect re∣mission of our sinnes. Obiection. The Masse is called a sa∣crifice of the Papistes, and likewise the supper is called a sacrifice by the Fathers: therefore the Fathers were Papists. Auns. The Papists call the M sse a propitiatorie sacrifice. The fathers cal the supper a sacrifice, and so it is, but an Eucharistical or thankesgiuing sacrifice. Againe, it is euen that same sacri∣fice which Christ offered, in such sort, as the bread is the bodie of Christ The Papists will haue it to bee a diuers sa∣crifice, whereby is obtained remission of sinnes. Nowe it is one thing for the same sacrifice to bee often offered: and an other thing for one sacrifice to bee once offered, and that sufficient to take away all sinnes. This sacrifice alone is sufficient for remission of sinnes, and, this sacrifice with others is offered for sinnes; these speeches are contradi∣ctorie.

5 The Masse is repugnant to Christes Priesthoode▪ because hee is the onely high Priest who hath power to offer him∣selfe. The Pope with his companions most impudently pulleth this honor to himselfe. For these deceiuers and ly∣ing men feigne with great contumely and despite to christ, that they offer again christ vnto the Father, and that they alone are worthy men to offer christ vnto his Father: when yet no man, no Angel, neither any creature is of that dig∣nity and worthines, as that hee may sacrifice the sonne of God. For the Priest is abooue the sacrifice: they therefore

who will bee the Priestes to offer christ, mount and lift themselues aboue him. Obiection. The Pri••st•• staie not, but offer onelie and present the sonne vnto the father, that for his sake he may remit vs our sinnes, and so they onelie applie that one and onelie sacrifice of christ. Aunswere. It is inough that they say, that they offer Christ with their hands. For 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••emai∣neth that they make themselues Priests. Neither is it ma∣teriall, that they deny that they slay Christ. Many thinges were offered of olde by the Priests, which were not slaine, neither were of that qualitie, but were onely offered, as cakes, & liquid offrings, & burnt offrings, & such like. The Iewes indeede slew Christ, but they did not sacrifice him: but Christ himselfe was willingly slaine, & therefore sa∣crificed himselfe. Heb. 9.14. Christ through the eternal spirite offered himselfe without spot to God: and verily hee offered himselfe once a sacrifice vnto his father for vs. Heb. 9.28. Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of manie; and to them that looke for him shall hee appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation. Heb. 10.12. Christ after he had of∣fered one sacrifice for sinnes, sitteth for euer at the right hand of God. Now the Papists contrarie to these manifest places of scripture will haue Christ to be often offered in the Masse.

6 The Masse is repugnant to the doctrine of grace and iu∣stification, which teacheth, that in this life onelie is the time of ob∣teining fauour, by faith alone, for the onelie merite of christ. The papists neglecting faith, which they haue no knowledge of, & reiecting Christs merit, substitute in place thereof this idolatrous inuention. For through and for this sacrifice of the Masse, and so for this worke (as they speake) wrought, they main∣taine that the dead also obtaine remission of sinnes.

7 The Masse is repugnant vnto the articles of our faith con∣cerning the true humanitie of christ, concerning his true ascension into heauen, and his returning from thence, at the day of iudge∣ment. For they make a corporal presence of christ in the Masse, say∣ing that christ is inuisible present vnder the forme of breade and wine, the substance of the bread and wine beeing abolished, as of∣ten as the Masse is celebrated, and this presence of Christ is corporal, when the accidents onely of the signe remaine. Jt is contrarie also to the nature of sacraments, which permit∣teth not the substance of the signs to be abolished, neither

requireth any naturall connexion of the signes and things: and therefore neither is it required in the Supper, which leadeth vs to christ crucified; and raigning in heauen, and from thence communicating himselfe vnto vs.

8 The Masse is contrarie to the communion of Saintes with Christ. For it imagineth an execrable inuention, which is, that Christes bodie doth descend into our bodies, and remaineth as long within our bodies as the formes remaine of bread and wine. But the supper reacheth that wee are made members of Christ by the holy gh st. and ingraffed into him.

9 The Masse is repugnaunt to the true worship of God, be∣cause it maketh Christ to be there corporally present, & so by con∣sequent there to bee worshipped. Euen as of ould before his as∣cension it was not onely lawful, but in duty required; that Christ should be worshipped in whatsoeuer place hee was, and so also did his Disciples alwaies worship him, when he was present, as also when he ascended from them: but after his ascension they did not from that time adore & worship him, turning vnto any one particular place more than o∣ther. Wherfore seing the Papists in their Masse tie the wor∣ship and adoration of christ vnto a thing, whereunto christ himselfe by expresse word hath not tied it; they professe them selues to be idolaters, and doe no lesse absurdly and impiously in this, than if they should worship Christ at a wal, or if they should worship a piller falling downe before it. Which we prooue, 1. Because no creature hath power to ty the woorshippe of God to anie thing or place, wherein God hath not commaunded by expresse word himselfe to be worshipped, and wherein God hath not promised to hear vs. And hereby is the cause of that diffe∣rence plainly scene, why the Iewes directing their praier to the propitiatorie or mercy seat did notwithstanding withall in spirite worship the true God, and were by promise from him assured to bee head: but worshipping in Dan, and in Bethel, and in the high pla∣ces, and in the temple of Samaria, were idolaters not knowing what they worshipped. Ioh. 4 22. Yee worship that which yee knowe not: we worship that which we know: for saluation is of the Iewes: and the cause of this thing is more at large declared in the se∣cond of Kinges cap. 17. 2. Because in the newe testament all worshippe which is tied to anie certaine place on earth is vtterlie taken awaie, and spiritual worship onlie required, stirred and kin∣dled

by the holy ghost, and doone with a true faith, and knowledge of God Ioh. 4.21. The houre commeth, when ye shal neither in this mountaine, nor at Jerusalem worship the Father. In these words Christ doth plainely take away worship tied and restrained to any certaine place on earth. Wherefore wee must also take away and haue in detestation this impious inuention of christs corporal presence in the Masse, or in the breade and wine. For this being but, that christ is in bodie present in the bread (whether it be said to be done by transubstan∣tiation, or by consubstantiation) the popish adoration stan∣deth fast: and of the contrarie side the presence of Christs body in the breade is taken away, if wee take away this foule and shamefull Popish adoration of Christs bodie ly∣ing couertly by their iudgement vnder the formes of bread and wine. Now withall wee are here to obserue, What it is, to worship christ in the bread, namelie, to direct our worshippe in soule, minde, cogitation, and, as much as may be, in the motion of our bodies to the place in which the bread is, and turning thereto to yeelde reuerence vnto christ, as if hee were present there m re than else-where. So of olde they worshipped God at the Arke, turning thereto with their mindes, and as much as might be, with their external grace and inclination of bodie.

1 OBiection. The Masse is an application of Christes sacrifice: Therefore it is not to be taken away. Aunsw. I denie the Antecedent: because wee applie Christs merit by faith onely. Obiect. 2. There must bee a perpetuall sacri∣fice in the Church, because Jsai foretold••, that it should bee from sabbath to sabbath. Aunswere. There must indeed be a per∣petuall sacrifice in the church, which is the sacrifice of thankes-giuing. 1. Because it is a remembraunce of Christes sa∣crifice. 2. Because almes were giuen in the primitiue church, af∣ter the supper was ended, which were a sacrifice. 3. The supper also is an Eucharistical or thankesgiuing sacrifice. For a propitiato∣ry sacrifice, the Fathers neuer dreamt of.

6 What is the right and lawful vse of the supper.

THE right and lawfull vse of the supper consisteth in three thinges. 1. When the rites and ceremonies in∣stituted of CHRIST, are reteined and obserued; yet so that they bee not obserued of one or two priuatelie: but that in a conuenient and lawfull assemblie of the church the breade

be broken, distributed, and receiued: and the wine giuen to all that communicate in remembrance of Christes death, that is, for con∣firmation of their faith, and to shew their thankefulnesse. 2. When the rites are obserued of those persons, for whome Christ did institute them; that is, when the bread and wine is distri∣buted and receiued of others, of whom the Lorde woulde haue it receiued, namely, not of his enemies, but of his Disciples, which are the faithful. For the obseruing of the rite without faith and repentance, is not the vse, but the abuse of it. 3. When the supper is receiued for the right end, which is, in commemoration and remembraunce of the Lordes death.

7 What the wicked receiue in the Lords supper.

THE wicked receiue. 1. The bare signes onely, namely bread and wine. 2. They receiue those signes to their condemnation, or they eate their owne dannation. Nowe to eate damnation, is, through incredulitie & abusing of the sacrament to be abaliena∣ted and repelled from christ and al his blessinges: or, through abu∣sing of the sacrament being receiued without faith & repentance, grieuously to offend God, and so to draw vpon themselues temporal and euerlasting punishmentes, except they repent. Contrariwise, to eate christ, is, through faith to bee made partaker of his merite, efficacie, and benefites. For no man can eate christ, and not withall be made by faith partaker of his merite, efficacie, and giftes. No man therefore can both eate Christ, and withall eate his owne damnation: and therefore false is their obiection, who say thus: The wicked eate damnation vnto themselues: Therefore they eate Christ. Reply. But why eat the wicked damna∣tion vnto themselues, seeing it is a good worke to receiue the sacra∣mentes? Aunswere. It is a good work by it selfe, but not vnto the wicked. The receiuing of the sacramentes is a good worke, when the true and right vse is adioined: otherwise it is made not a commaunded, but a forbidden work, as also God saith: He that killeth a bullocke is as if he slue a man. So Paul: If thou be a transgressour of the Law, thy circumcision is made vncircumcision.

Now for these causes the wicked eate vnto themselues, and drawe on themselues damnation. 1. Because they profane the signes, and by consequent the thing signified, by laieng holde on those thinges, which were not instituted for them, but for the Dis∣••iples of Christ. 2. Because they profane the couenaunt and testa∣ment

of God, by taking vnto themselues the signes and tokens of the couenaunt. They wil seeme to be in league with GOD, when as they are in league with the Diuell, and not with God, whom by this meanes they would make the Father of the wicked. 3. Because they tread vnder foote the bloude of Christ. His benefits indeed are offered vnto them, but they receiue them not with faith, and so mock God, while they professe that they receiue the benefites of Christ, when as they doe or mind nothing lesse, and adde this new offence to their other sinnes. 4. Because they condemne themselues by their owne iudgement. For approching vnto the Lords table they professe that they accept of this doctrine, and doe be∣leeue no saluation to be without Christ: & yet in the mean season are conscious vnto themselues, that they are hy∣pocrites, and so condemne themselues.

8 Who ought to approch and be admitted vnto the supper.

THIS question also conteineth two seuerall partes in it; vnto which wee are seuerally to aunswere. In the former part is demanded, who ought to approch vnto the sup∣per: In the latter, who ought to bee admitted. And this latter part is larger and more generall, because not the godly onely, but hypocrites also, who are not yet knowen to bee such, are to be admitted vnto the supper.

First then is to bee considered, who ought to approch thi∣ther. They onely ought to approche vnto the supper, who liue in true faith and repentance, and so who haue faith and re∣pentance not in possibilitie onelie, but also actuallie: whereby this obiection is refuted, that Jnfants haue faith, and there∣fore ought to approche vnto the Lords Supper. For they ought not to come in respect of this circumstance, which is adioi∣ned in the institution of the Supper, Shewe the death of the Lord: Likewise, Let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup.

Wherefore we vnderstand in this place an actual faith, which is a knowledge, confidence, beginning of obedience and a serious and earnest purpose to liue well. But Infants haue faith onely potentiallie and in possibility, not actual∣ly: they haue an inclination onelie to faith; or they haue faith onely by inclination, but they haue not an actuall faith. F••••thermore, that it is not lawfull for the wicked to ap∣proch

vnto the Supper, it is manifest: For the sacraments are in∣stituted only for the faithful & those which are cōuerted, to seal to thē the promise, & to confirm their faith. The Word notwithstan∣ding is common to the conuerted and vnconuerted, that the con∣uerted may heare it, and bee confirmed by it; and that the vncon∣uerted also may heare it, and thereby bee conuerted. Wherefore from the nature and subiect of sacramentes is drawen this demonstratiue proofe: What God hath instituted for his hous∣hold and children, that hypocrites and aliants from the Church ought not to receiue. Moreouer Paul also interdicteth all the wicked without any exception from comming vnto this holy supper, by woordes authentique; in which namely hee commaundeth, that euerie man trie and examine himselfe, and so eate of that bread, & drinke of that cup. But to examine himself, is to trie whether he hath faith and repentance. Wherefore he will haue him to come, who hath these things in him. But how shall a man know that he hath these things? 1. By a purpose and desire to obey god according to al the commandements of God. 2. By a con∣fidence & tranquillity of conscience. Hope maketh not ashamed: be∣cause the loue of God is shed abroad in our harts by the holie ghost, which is giuen to vs. 3. By effects, as by the beginning of inward & outward obedience. Vnto these may be adioined also generall testimonies, whereby vnbeleeuers are forbidden to come to the Supper. As Mat. 5.24. Leaue there thine offring before the al∣tar: first be reconciled to thy brother, & then come & offer thy gift. Likewise, 66.3. He that killeth a Bullocke is as if he slew a man.

The second part of the former question is, Who ought to bee admitted vnto the Lords Supper.

THey are to be admitted of the Church, who in woords & deedes professe true repentance: they also who expresse & shew a profession of faith & repentance in the actions of their life, are to be admitted: but not they, whosoeuer simplie doe auouch that they beleeue all things. For he that saith he beleeueth and hath not woorkes, is a lier, and denieth indeede that which he affirmeth in words, according to that of the Apo∣stle: They professe that they knowe God, but by woorkes they denie him, and are abhominable, and disobedient, and to euerie good work reprobate. So saint Iames also sheweth, That faith which is without workes, is dead. The reasons, why they are to be ad∣mitted onely, who both by their confession and life pro∣fesse

faith and repentance, are these, 1. Because the church shoulde prophane Gods couenant if it shoulde admit vnbeleeuers and men impenitent. For he that dooth a thing, and he that consenteth vnto it, are both obnoxious to the same lawe. To prophane the couenaunt of God, is, to commend and ac∣knowledge them for the confederates or friends and fel∣lowes of God, who are Gods enimies, and so to make God such a one, as hath entered a couenaunt and is in league with hypocrites and wicked men. Now the couenaunt of God is two waies prophaned, namelie as well by communicating and im∣parting the signes of the couenaunt to them vnto whom God pro∣miseth nothing, as by receiuing and vsing the signes without faith and repentance. For not onely they prophane the couenant, who being as yet impenitent; take the signes of the coue∣nant vnto them, but they also, who wittingly and willingly giue the signs vnto those, whom god hath shut from his co∣uenant. They make therefore God a felowe & friend of the wicked, & the son of the diuell the son of God, whosoeuer reach the signes vnto the wicked. Obiect. Hee that giueth to him that abuseth it, sinneth. The church giueth the supper vnto hypocrits which abuse it. Therefore the church sinneth. Ans. He that giueth the supper to one which abuseth it, sinneth, if he wittingly & willingly doth it: otherwise he sinneth not, but they who abuse the supper purchase damnation to thē∣selues. But the godly are not made partakers of that pro∣phanation of the couenant prophaned by the wicked, if they knowe not the wicked approching vnto the supper, neither doe willingly admit the wicked. Reply. If they sinne, who giue the supper wittinglie to him that abuseth it, then dooth the Minister also sinne, if he distribute it vnto such a one, where yet there is no sentence passed of excommunication. Aun∣swere. True; if hee doe it willingly: but if the church proceed not against such a man, and the minister notwith∣standing be instant vpon the Church, and doe his duetie, he is blamelesse, and the sinne shall lie on others, euen on the Church. 2. They are not to bee admitted to the supper, who professe not faith and repentaunce both in life and confession; because if such should be admitted, the church should stir vp the anger of God against her selfe; as of whom wittinglie and willing∣lie this shoulde bee committed. Nowe that by this meanes the

wrath of God is stirr••d vp against the church; the Apostle sufficiently witnesseth, saying: For this cause manie are weake and sicke among you, and manie sleepe. For if wee woulde iudge our selues, we should not bee iudged. God therefore is angrie with the consenters, & so punisheth them, because he punisheth the wicked whom they cōsenting thereto admitted: for by both the supper of the Lorde is alike prophaned. 3. Christ hath cōmanded that the wicked be not admitted. And if any de∣nie that any such cōmandment is extant, yet the substance & tenor of the commandement shalbe easily prooued. For christ instituted his supper for his disciples, & to thē alone he said, I haue earnestlie desired to eate this Passeouer with you. Take this and part it among you. This is my bodie, which is giuen for you. This cup is the new testament in my bloud, which is shed for you. Wherefore the supper was instituted for Christes disciples onely; all others, for whom Christ died not, are excluded. But yet for all this, those hypocrites are to bee admitted together with the godly vnto the supper, who are not as yet manifested, because they professe in confession and outward actions faith and repentance. But none ought to approch thither, but true beleeuers. For these onely ex∣cepted, all others, yea euen those hypocrites, which are not as yet manifested, eate and drinke vnto themselues damnation, and prophane the Lords sacred Supper. Ob∣iection. They then who auoide the prophaning of the Lords Sup∣per, doe well: but they who refraine from the Lordes supper in re∣spect of some hatred they beare to others, or for some other sinnes, auoide the prophaning of the supper. Therefore they doe well An∣swere. They who auoid the prophaning of the supper doe well, if they auoid it in such sort as they ought, namely by repenting themselues of those sinnes which haue been the causes of their refraining.

CERTAINE CONCLVSIONS OF THE SVPPER.

1 THE other sacrament of the new testament is called, the supper of the Lord: not as if it were necessarie that the church should celebrate it in the Euening or vsuall time of supper: but because it was instituted of Christ in that supper which he last had with his Disciples before his death. It is called the table of the Lord, because Christ dooth feede vs

in it. It is called, the sacrament of the bodie and bloud of christ: because these are communicated and imparted vnto vs in it. It is called the Eucharist, because in it are giuen solemne thankes vnto Christ for his death and benefites. It is called Synaxis, or the conuent, because it ought to be celebrated in the conuents and assemblies of the church. It is called also of the auncient a sacrifice, because it is a representation of the propitiatory sacrifice accomplished by Christ on the crosse, and a thankes-giuing, or Eu∣charistical sacrifice for the same. There is a third reason also why they called it a sacrifice: because the ancient were wont themselues to confer bread vnto it: & therefore were they said to offer, that is, to conferre and giue in seuerall bread to that vse.

2 The supper of the lord is a sacrament of the new testament, wherein according to the commandement of Christ, bread and wine is distributed and receiued, in the assemblie of the faithfull, in re∣membraunce of christ: which is, that christ might testifie vnto vs, that hee feedeth vs, with his body and bloud deliuered and shed for vs, vnto eternal life; and that we also might for these his benefites giue solemne thankes vnto him.

3 The first and principal end and vse of the Lords sup∣per is, that Christ might therein testifie vnto vs, that hee died for vs, and dooth feede vs with his bloude and body vnto euerlasting life, that so by this testification hee might cherish and encrease in vs our faith, and so consequently this spirituall foode and nourish∣ment. The second end is thankes-giuing, for these benefites of Christ, and our publique and solemne profession of them, and our duty towards christ. The third is, the distinguishing of the church from other sectes. The fourth: That it might be a bond of mutual loue and dilection. The fift; That it might be a bond of our assem∣blies and meetinges.

4 That first ende and vse, which is the confirmation of our faith in Christ, the supper of the Lord hereof hath, because Christ himselfe giueth this bread and drink by the hands of his ministers to be a memorial of him; that is, to admonish and put vs in remem∣braunce by this signe as by his visible word, that he died for vs, and is the foode of eternall life vnto vs, while hee maketh vs his mem∣bers: both because he hath annexed a promise to this rite, that hee wil feede those, who eate this bread in remembraunce of him, with his owne bodie and bloud, when he saith, This my body: and also be∣cause the holy ghost doth by this visible testimony moue our minds

and harts more firmely to beleeue the promise of the gospel.

5 There is then in the Lords supper a double meat and drink, one externall, visible, terrene, namely bread and wine: and another internall. There is also a double eating and receiuing: an external, and signifieng, which is the corporall receiuing of the bread and wine, that is, which is perfourmed by the handes, mouth, and senses of the bodie: and an internal, inuisible, and signified, which is the fruition of Christes death, and a spirituall engraffing into Christes bodie: that is, which is not perfourmed by the handes, and mouth of the bodie, but by the spirite and faith. Lastly there is a double ad∣minister and dispenser of this meat and drinke; an externall, of the externall, which is the minister of the church deliuering vs by his hand bread and wine: and an internal of the internal meate, which is Christ himselfe feeding vs by his body and bloud.

6 Not the body and bloud of Christ, but the bread and wine are the signes which serue for confirmation of our faith: for the bo∣die and bloud of Christ are receiued, that we may liue for euer. But the bread and wine are receiued, that wee maie bee confirmed and assured of that heauenlie foode, and dailie more and more enioie it.

7 Neither is the bread changed into the bodie of Christ, nor the wine into the bloud of Christ: neither doth the bodie and bloud of Christ succeed in their place, they beeing abolished: neither is Christs body substantially present in the bread, or vnder the bread, or where the bread is: but in the right vse of the Lords supper, the holy Ghost vseth this Symbole, as an instrument, to stirre vp faith in vs, by which he more and more dwelleth in vs, engraffeth vs in∣to Christ, and maketh vs thorough him to bee iust and righteous, and to draw eternal life from him.

8 Now when Christ saith, This, that is, this bread, is my body, and, This cup is my bloud, the speech is sacramental or metonymi∣cal, because the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign it selfe: that is, it is meant, that the bread is the sacrament or signe of his bodie and doth represent him, and dooth testifie that Christes bodie is offered for vs on the crosse, and is giuen vnto vs to be the foode of eternal life, and therefore is the instrument of the ho∣lie Ghost to maintaine and encrease this food in vs, as Saint Paul saith, 1. Corinth. 10. The bread is the communion of the bodie of Christ, that is, it is that thing, by which wee are made partakers of christs bodie. And elsewhere hee saith: We haue been al made to drink into one spirit. The same is the meaning also: when it is said,

that the bread is called christes bodie, for a similitude which the thing signified hath with the signe, namely, in that christes bo∣dy nourisheth the spirituall life as breade dooth the corporall life: and for that assured and certaine ioint receiuing of the thing and the signe in the right vse of the sacrament. And this is the sacra∣mental vnion of the bread which is shewed by a sacramental kinde of speaking▪ but no such locall coniunction, which is by some ima∣gined.

9 As therefore the body of christ signifieth both his proper and natural bodie, and his sacramental bodie, which is the bread of the Eucharist: so the eating of Christes body is of two sorts; one sa∣cramental of the signe, to wit, the externall and corporall receiuing of the bread and wine: the other reall or spirituall, which is the re∣ceiuing of christs very body it selfe. And to bel••eue in christ dwel∣ling in vs by faith, is, by the vertue & operatiō of the holy ghost to be engraffed into his bodie, as members to the head, & branches in∣to the vine: and so to bee made partakers of the frutie of the de••th and life of christ. Whence it is apparant that they are falsly accu∣sed who thus teach, as if they made either the bare signes onely to be in the Lords Supper, or a part••cipation of christes death onelie, or of his benefits, or of the holy Ghost, excluding the true, reall, & spirituall communion of the very body of Christ it selfe.

10 Now the right vse of the Supper is, when the faithfull obserue this rite instituted by Christ, in remembraunce of Christ: that is, to the stirring and raising vp of their faith and thanke∣fulnesse.

11 As in this right vse the bodie of Christ is sacramentallie eaten: so also without this vse, (as by vnbeleeuers and hypocrites) it is eaten sacramentally indeede, but not reallie, that is, the sacra∣mental Symboles or signes bread and wine are receiued, but not the thinges themselues of the sacrament, to wit, the bodie and bloud of Christ.

12 This doctrine of the supper of the Lord is grounded vpon verie manie and those most sound and firme reasons. All those pla∣ces of Scripture confirme it, which speake of the Lords supper; and Christ, calling not anie inuisible thing in the bread▪ but the verie visible and broken bread it selfe his bodie deliuered or broken for vs: which whereas it cannot bee meant properlie, himselfe addeth an exposition, that that bread is truely receiued in remembraunce of him; which is as if he had said, That the bread is a sacrament of

his bodie. So likewise he saith, the supper is the new testament, which is spirituall, one, and euerlasting. And Paul saith it is the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ, because al the faith∣ful are one bodie in christ; who cannot stand together with the com∣munion of Diuels. Likewise, he maketh one and the same engraffing into christes bodie by one spirit to bee both in Baptisme and in the Lords Supper. Moreouer the whole doctrine and nature of sacra∣mentes confirme the same, all which represent vnto the eies the same spirituall communion of christ to bee receiued by faith, which the word or promise of the Gospel declareth vnto the eares. There∣fore they are called by the names of the thinges signified, and in their right vse haue the receiuing of the thinges adioined vnto them. The Articles also of our faith confirme it, which teach that christs bodie is a true humane bodie, not present at once in manie places, as being now receiued into heauen, and there to remain, vn∣til the Lorde returne to iudgement; and further that the com∣munion of Saintes with christ is wrought by the holie Ghost, not by anie entraunce of christs bodie into the bodies of men. Wherefore this sentence and doctrine is of all the purer anti∣quitie of the church with most great and manifest consent held and professed.

13 The Supper of the Lord differeth from Baptisme, 1. Jn the Rite and manner of signifieng, because the dipping into the water or washing signifieth a remission and purging out of sinne by the bloud and spirit of Christ, and our societie & fellowship with christ in his afflictions and glorification. But the distributing of the bread and wine signifieth the death of Christ to bee imputed to vs vnto remission of sinnes, and our selues engraffed into Christ to become his members. 2. They differ in their speciall vse, because Baptisme is the testimonie of our regeneration, and of the couenant made be∣tweene vs and God, and of our receiuing into the Church: But the Lords supper testifieth that wee are euer to bee nourished by Christ remaining in vs, and that the couenant made betweene God and vs shall euer be established and ratified vnto vs, and that we for euer shall abide in the church and bodie of Christ. 3. They differ in the persons, to whom they are to be giuen. Baptisme is giuen to all those, who are to bee accounted for members of the church, whether they be of yeares and vnderstanding, or infants. The Lords Supper is to bee giuen to them onely, who are able to vnderstand, and celebrate the benefits of christ, and to examine themselues. 4. They differ in

the often celebrating of them. Baptisme is to bee receiued but onc•• onely, because the couenant of God being once made is alwaies firme and of force to the penitent: But the Supper is often to bee receiued, because an often renewing and recalling of that couenant to our re∣membrance, is necessarie for our faith. 5. They differ in the order which is to bee obserued in vse of them. Because Baptisme is to bee giuen before the Supper, and the supper may not be giuen vnto any except hee be first baptised.

14 They come worthily to the Lords Supper, who examin them∣selues, that is, are endewed with true faith and repentance. They who finde not this in themselues, ought neither to come without it, least they eate and drink their owne iudgement; nor to differ repen∣tance wherewith they should come, least they draw vpon themselues hardnes of hart and eternal pains.

15 The church ought to admit all those vnto it who professe themselues to embrace the ground and foundation of christian do∣ctrine, and to haue a purpose to obey it: but those must bee repelled, who wil not desist either from their errors and blasphemies, or from manifest sinnes against their conscience, beeing admonished by the church and conuicted of error.

16 The Pope hath corruptlie taken awaie the breaking of the bread from the rite of the supper, and bereaued the people of the vse of the cup: Corruptly also hath hee deformed the supper of the Lord, with adding so manie ceremonies not deliuered by the Apo∣stles, into a theatricall or pageant-like Masse, that is, into a Iewish superstitiō & stagelike rounds & conueiances. But more wicked & idolatrous inuentions are these: That the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice, wherein christ is offered by the Masse-priests for the quick and dead, and is by the force of consecration substantiallie present and abideth so long as those formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted, and further, dooth bestow the grace of God and other benefits vpon them for whom he is offered; of whom also he is eaten with the mouth of their body, yea though they haue no good inward motion in them: and lastly is, being treasured and laid vp and car∣ried about vnder those formes, to be worshipped. Jn respect of these foule monsters, it is necessary that the Masse be quite and cleane abolished out of the christian church. In summe they are these, 1. Transubstantiation. 2. Bread-worship. 3. Sacrifice. 4. Maiming of Christes Supper.

THE APPENDIX OR ADDITION AD∣IOINING VNTO THE FORMER TREA∣tise of the Supper.

Certaine principal arguments of the Consubstantiaries against the syncere doctrine of the Lordes Supper, & the Sa∣cramentaries, as they cal them: together with a refutation of them.

1 THE errours of the Sacramentaries (say they) are, that there are but bare signes and Symboles onelie in the supper. Answere. We teach that the things signified are together with the signes, in the right vse, exhi∣ted and communicated, albeit not corporally, but in such sort as is agreeable vnto sacramentes. 2. The Sacramen∣taries saie, That christ is present onlie according to his power and efficacie. Aunswere. Wee teach that he is present and vnited with vs by the holy Ghost, albeit his bodie bee farre absent from vs: like as whole Christ also is present with his mini∣sterie, though diuerslie according to the one nature. 3. The Sacramentaries, say they, affirme that an imaginarie, figuratiue or spiritual bodie of christ is present, not his essentiall bodie. An∣swere. Wee neuer spoke of an imaginarie bodie, but of the true flesh of Christ, which is present with vs, although it re∣maine in heauen. Moreouer wee say that wee receiue the bread and the body, but both after a maner proper to ech. 4. The Sacramentaries, saie they, affirme, that the true bodie of Christ, which hung on the crosse, and his verie bloud which was shed for vs, is distributed, but is spirituallie receiued of those onelie who are worthy receiuers; as for the vnworthy, they receiue nothing be∣sides the bare signes vnto their condemnation. Aunswere. Al this wee graunt, as beeing agreeable vnto the woorde of God, the nature of sacraments, the analogy of faith, & the com∣munion of the faithful.

Certaine arguments of the Consubstantiaries, whereby they goe about to ouerthrow our doctrine of the Lords Supper: together with the refuta∣tions of them.

1 THE words of the institution are open and plain, This my bodie, this is my bloud. Answere. They alleadge these woordes against them-selues. For they saie, That the bodie of Christ is receiued reallie in, vnder, with the

bread: when christ saith, that the very bread is his body. Where∣fore they doe a double iniury vnto the church: first, while they thrust vpon the church their owne words for Christs. Secondly, while they imagine that the church perceiueth not these speeches to be diuerse, In the bread is my body, and, The bread is my bodie. They accuse Christ also for a lier: for they deny that the bread is his body, but that his body is in the bread. Let them looke therefore vnto it, how they wil aunswere Christ at the last iudgement for this blasphe∣my and reproch. The Papistes also doe more retaine the very words of Christ. But these retaine not the woord, but follow the sense and meaning. We must see therfore which part followeth it. Ours shal be prooued in the end. Replie. Christ addeth an exposition of his minde, Which is giuen for you, and, Which is shed for you. Answere. First, this is a begging of that which is in question. For they take as graunted, that the bread is properly called the bodie, which yet lieth vp∣on them to prooue. For it is a sacramental maner of spea∣king. Secondly, we returne their own reason vpon them by inuerting it thus. The bodie of Christ properly so called was giuē for vs. But the bread was not giuē for vs: Therfore the bread is not the body properly so called. Likewise, as the bread is the body broken, so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the bodie. But the breaking of the bo∣die is the crucifieng thereof. Therefore the breade bro∣ken is but sacramentally and by representation, the bodie broken.

2 They reason from the autor, who said it, and is true. Aun∣swere. This is also a begging of that which is in question. They must proue that Christ said, his bodie was in, vnder, with the bread. And further a man may speake figuratiuely, and yet speake perspicuouslie and plainly. Reply. He is also omni∣potent. Therefore he is able to be eueriewhere, and so in the bread. Aunswere. Albeit he were able to bring to passe, that two flat repugnaunt thinges should be true together: yet wil he not doe it. Againe, God is not able to woorke contradicto∣ries, or thinges flat repugnaunt, because he is true. Now, to wil those thinges which are contradictorie, argueth a lier. Wherefore wee deny not the trueth and omnipotency of God; but these mens lies: nay rather we defend gods truth,

affiming that God doth that which he spake. But they op∣pugne it making contrary wils to be in God. Replie. Christs bodie hath manie prerogatiues not agreeable to our bodies: as that he was borne of a Virgine, walked on the sea, was at one time and together in the graue, in Hel, and in Par••dise: and passed through the gates when they were fast shut. Aunswere. These examples are partly not matches, & partly false. For this may agree vnto a creature, to walke on the waters, as it did vnto Peter: to passe through the gates shut, as is agreeable to the nature of a spirit. Againe, These examples are not matches nor of the same qualitie with that which is in question. Because these doe not ••mply a contradiction. For when hee is saide to bee borne of a Virgine, he is not said withal, not to be borne of a Virgine. But to be both finite and infinite (as they wil haue Christs body who consubstantiate it with the bread) these implie a contradiction. Now it is false, that they saie, that hee passed thorough the gate•• shut, whereas the gates might yeelde and o••en vnto him: as also, that he passed through the doore or stone of the graue, when as it is said that the Angell did open it: and lastly, when they saie, that Christes bodie was at once and together in moe places: which they seeme to haue taken out of Austine. But Austine said, That his bodie was in the graue, his soule in hel, and his Godhead eueriewhere.

3 They reason from a circumstance of the time: The same night in which hee was betraied. No man which speaketh seriously, spea∣keth figuratiuely, Christ instituting his supper spake seriously. Therefore without any figure. Aunswere. I denie the Maior: because by that position no man that speaketh seriously should speak figuratiuely, which is most false. God speaketh in all sacraments, though figuratiuely, yet seriously. I haue earnestly desired (saith Christ) to eate this Passeouer with you. Wherefore I aunswere, that he vseth not iesting or obscure figures. This figure is perspicuous, because it is vsual, and his disciples speak so: Where wilt thou that wee goe, and prepare that thou maiest eate the passouer? It is vsuall also in all sacra∣ments It is forcible and emphaticall, because it expresseth the similitude of the signe and the thing signified, and the certainetie of the coniunction of both in the right vse and administration. Againe we inuert their reason, and say, Be∣cause christ spake seriously, therefore he vsed a figure which

doth well expresse and declare the thing. Replie. Christ sayd, This cup is the new testament. Jn wils and testaments men speake properly. Christ here instituteth a sacrament: therefore, &c. Answere. I denie the Maior, and inuert the reason: for see∣ing hee would institute a sacrament, therefore hee spake figuratiuely, calling his Supper the new Testament; which is figuratiuely to be vnderstoode for these two reasons. 1. Because otherwise there should be two couenants, the one proper, and the other the supper. 2. Otherwise also they should be shut out from Gods couenant, who cannot come to the supper, and all who came to the supper should be in the couenant. Obiection. Christ saith, In my bloud. There∣fore the real bloud of christ is in the supper, and is drunke by the mouth. Aunswere. Wee conclude the contrarie rather by those woordes of Christ. Because the newe testament was made by Christs bloud shed on the Crosse and applied vn∣to vs by faith, not drunke by the mouth: for otherwise they shoulde bee excluded from the testament and couenaunt, who were not able to come to this sacrament. Replie. There is a great force in the woord, Newe. That which was doone in the old testament typicallie, is done in the new reallie. Aun∣swere. If they adde, Therefore doone by the mouth of the bodie: they bring in more in the conclusion, than was in the antecedent. For there was no type in the olde testa∣ment which did signifie the eating of Christ with the mouth. 2. We inuert their reason. Christs bodie was no o∣therwise eaten in the new testament, than in the olde: But in the old it was eaten spirituallie onely: Therefore in the new also it is so eaten. Reply. The newe testament differeth from the olde, because in that were types, in the newe is the bodie it selfe, Heb. 9. Col. 2. Aunswere. This difference of the old and new testament is no where set downe in holy scripture that Christ is eaten in the old not really, and in the newe corporally by the mouth. In the places which are allead∣ged out of the Apostle, the bodie signifieth that the sha∣dow was onely of the old testament and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ. Because there the bodie is opposed to those shadowes: and further because he calleth it the bo∣die of christ: which kinde of speech sheweth that by Christ was wrought the accomplishment & fulfilling of the types

or shadowes of the Old Testament. Moreouer, albeit wee haue Christ exhibited in the newe testament, and hee is there borne man, yet notwithstanding it dooth not there∣fore folow hereof, that his bodie is in the bread, but onely that it is in the new testament.

4 They reason from the consent of the Euangelists, and sain•• Paul. Matthew, as Theophylact calculateth, writ his gospel eight yeares after christs assension: Marke, ten yeares: Luke, fifteene yeares: Paul, twentie yeares. And all vse the same words. A speech that is often vttered with the same wordes is not figuratiue. Such is the speech of the Lordes Supper. Therefore it is not figuratiue. Answere. It is false that a speech often vttered in the same words is not figuratiue: because when a figure is conspicu∣ous, knowen, and forcible, as this, it is reteined. Againe, the Euangelists repeat the woordes of Christ, because hee spake figuratiuely. Often, though it bee figuratiue, is this repeated: He shal baptize with the holie Ghost and with fier. Ioh. 1. Matth. 3. Moreouer we denie that this speech of Christs Supper was repeated by all in the same wordes. 1. Because Matthew and Mark say, This is my bloud of the new testament. Luke saith, This cup is the new testament in my bloud. 2. Mat∣thew and Marke say, This is my bodie. Luke addeth, which is giuen for you: Paul, which is broken for you. 3. Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of the bodie of Christ. And albeit in this place hee speaketh not purposedly of the Supper, yet hee stirreth vp and exhorteth vnto it. Replie. Jt is the same sense and meaning. Aunswere. The question is not now of the sense and meaning of the woordes, but of the i∣dentitie of the wordes, that is, whether they bee the same wordes. Replie. Where there is no mention at all of anie figure, there is no figure. Answere. This is false. For foolish were it, and men shoulde seeme to make shewe and ostentation of their skill and art, if they should say that they vsed a trim fi∣gure. And the scripture also often speaketh figuratiuely, and yet doth it not ad withall that it speaketh figuratiuely. Furthermore, they make mention hereof, when they shew, that it consisteth of the nature of the subiect and the attri∣bute. The bodie was borne of the Virgin, crucified, and so forth. The bread is made of meale. Secondly, Christ wil∣leth this to bee done in remembraunce of him: Therefore the

breade is called his bodie, as a memoriall of his bodie. Thirdly Matthew and Marke say, This is my bloud of the newe testament. Paul and Luke say, This is the newe testament in my bloud. Now the newe testament is the bond whereby God hath bound himselfe to receiue the faithful and repentant into fauour, and they binde themselues to yeelde faith and obedience vnto him. Fourthly, Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of Christs bodie, which is not any corporal ea∣ting. 1. Because the faithful are thereby one bodie in christ. 2. Because he compareth it with the Communion of the altar in the old testament, which was not corporal. 3. Because it can agree but to the faithful onely, and not to the wic∣ked. 4. Iohn sheweth that communion: If we walke in the light we haue fellowship one with another, and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne cleanseth vs from all sinne. And further this commu∣nion whereof saint Paul speaketh, is our vnion with Christ, and fruition of all his benefites by faith. Hither belongeth the similitude of the bodie and the members, the vine and the braunches; which haue nothing to doe with any cor∣poral eating. This communion was and is common to all the faithful from the beginning vnto the worlds end. But they could not eat the body of christ corporally by their mouth. That wee might growe vp vnto him, by whom all the bodie is cou∣pled and knit together. He that is ioined vnto the Lord, is one spi∣rite. And by one spirite are we all baptized into one bodie. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in vs; because he hath gi∣uen vs of his spirite. This vnion therefore is that communion, which is wrought by the holy Ghost. Wherefore it is spiri∣tual For bread cannot be this communion but by a figure, as it is a signe of it. Replie. He that is guiltie of the bodie of Christ, eateth it. They who receiue vnworthilie are guiltie of the bodie of Christ. Therefore they eate it corporallie: for spirituallie they cannot: because if they coulde so eate it, they shoulde not be guiltie. Aunswere. The Maior is false For hee is guiltie of Christes bodie who by his sinnes hangeth it on the Crosse againe, and despiseth Christs benefite. For any real eating is not required to this guilt, but hee that will not receiue Christ offered by faith, is thereby made guiltie. So the in∣iurie done vnto the Arke, is said to be done vnto the Lord. Replie. They that discerne not the Lords bodie, eate it. But the

guiltie discerne it not; Therefore they eate it. Aunswere. If the Maior bee taken sacramentally, as of the breade, which is called and is the bodie of Christ, it is true: but if properly, it is false. For, not to discerne his body, is not to giue due honor to it, to contemne it, yea not to receiue the thing signified So Heb. 10.29. They are said to treade vnder foote the sonne of God, and to count the bloud of the testament as an vnholie thing, who contemne him.

5 They reason from the testimonies of the Fathers and the godlie of auncient times in the purer state of the church. Aun∣swere. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstoode sa∣cramentally, or of our spiritual communion. Replie. Au∣stin saith, thou shalt receiue this in the bread, which hung on the crosse: and this in the cup, which was shed out of christs side. An∣swere. In the bread, as in the signe, that is, together with the signe thou shalt receiue the thing signified. When wee receiue the bread, wee are certaine that wee haue Christ. 2. Replie, Cyrill vpon Iohn saith: By natural participation, not onelie spirituallie, but also corporallie: not onelie according to the spirit, but also according to the flesh, corporally & essentially. Ans. Cyril speaketh not of the maner of eating, but of the thing which was to be eatē. He sheweth that we are made parta∣kers not only of christs spirit, but also of his human nature. Now he vnderstandeth a spiritual communion. 1. Because he citeth those places cōcerning it. Ioh. 6. & 1. Cor. 10. where no mention is made of corporall eating. 2. Hee speakeih of the presence of Christ, not in the breade, but in vs. 3. Hee prooueth the abiding of Christ in vs by the vse of the Sup∣per, not by any corporal eating. 4. He so describeth it, that hee saith, It shall continue in the life to come. 5. Hee speaketh of that communion, which is proper vnto the Saintes. Nowe this is spiritual; for otherwise it should befall also to the wicked.

The shifts of Consubstantiaries, whereby they go about to elude & shift off certaine of our obiections, not all: for mo are obiected against them.

1 WEe make not, say they, any Capernaiticall eating. Ans. We demaunde of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth; be it after a grosse, or after finer maner. But how euer they aunswere, in that opinion which they hold, there is too too much idolatry. For christ

refuting the Capernaites, doth not distinguish the eating of him, into a grosse and a finer manner, but saith simplie, That his bodie can not be eaten with the bodily mouth: for he saieth, that hee must ascend; And that the woordes which hee speaketh are spirit and life.

2 Wee mainetaine not Vbiquitie: for there is not a woorde thereof to bee found. Aunswere. Here is to bee obserued the dissension of the aduersaries about Vbiquitie. But neither is a worde to be found hereof, That the bodie of Christ is together in two places. And further, of this their opinion followeth Vbiquitie. For he that is together & at one time in moe places, must needes be infinite, & therefore euerie∣where.

3 Wee ouerthrow not the article of Christs ascension. Aun∣swere. Yea, but they doe ouerthrow it. For while they holde, that, as often as the supper is celebrated, Christ is corporallie eaten, they must needes say that he remained and is inuisi∣ble on earth. But he is said to haue left the world, to haue ascen∣ded from a lower place into an higher, and to remaine in heauen, vntill hee come to iudgement. Nowe, that some except, That Christ dooth descend from heauen, as oft as the supper is administred; it is already refuted.

4 We take not awaie the doctrine of the properties of christs humanitie. Answere. They altogether take it away. For they wil haue his humane nature to be such, as is not seene, nor felt, nor limited in place. Reply. But christ did put off these in∣firmities, & reteined the essential properties. Answere. But these are verie essential properties, which being taken away, the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken awaie, Austine saith; Take awaie from bodies their spaces, and they shall be no where.

5 We abolish not the Doctrine concerning the communica∣ting of properties of both natures. Aunswere. Yea but they endeuour it. For they apply those properties of his di∣uine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete, to both natures. J wil be with you to the ende of the world. This they vnderstand of both natures: which is all one, as if, when it is said, Christ God and man was circumcised, one should thus conclude; Therefore the god∣head of Christ was circumcised as wel as his flesh. Replie.

This onelie wee adde; That those Articles belong to them. Aun∣swere. After this sort all sectes may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures. But they belong hither, and that by a double right. 1. Because they are written of the bodie of Christ. But the body of Christ belongeth to the supper. Therefo••e these Articles also belong hither. For they shew, how Christs bo∣die is to be ea••en 2 They belong hither, because no Article of faith, is at variaunce with another. So belongeth hither al∣so the Doctrine of iustification because in the ••upper no o∣ther iustice or righteousnes must bee sought for, but by the bloud of Christ.

6 The manner how we eate it, is not to bee defined. Answere. They commit a double fault in so saying. 1. When they denie that the maner is to be defined, and so contradict and gain saie the Scripture which defineth it, and sheweth that it is spiri∣tual, & that there is wrought an vnion with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost. 2. They themselues define the manner, as it clearly appeareth by their writings.

7 The saieng of Durandus is true: We heare the woords; we perceiue the motions; we know not the manner; we beleeue the pre∣sence. Aunswere. Durandus maketh nought either for you, or against vs, or for himselfe, because he was a Papist. And againe, if his saying be rightly vnderstoode, we may admit it. We heare the words, This is my bodie; not that we eate with our mouth the bodie of Christ in the breade. Wee perceiue the motions; that is, we perceiue the bread to enter into our mouth, not the bodie of Christ. We know not the maner, that is, not perfectly, to wit, after what maner the holy Ghost is eueriewhere whole in Christ and in al the Saints, and how he vniteth vs in Christ. We beleeue the presence, namely, such, as is the eating, and as is the vnion of the members and the head.

8 We teach this onelie, That the bodie and bloud of christ is trulie, substantiallie, and naturallie exhibited. Aunswere. Wee grant that we eat the true bodie of Christ. So then is their disputation vaine and friuolous. First, Because they confesse that wee are made partakers of the true bodie of christ, and that wee must not question of the manner. For this wee graunt. Secondly, Because the reasons and refutations which they bring, are of no weight or moment.

Certaine reasons whereby is proued, That the bodie of Christ is not present either in, or vnder, or at the bread of the Lords Supper, neither is corporallie eaten Vnder, With, Jn, or At the Bread.

1 BEcause hee tooke a true humane nature. Whereunto wee ad also, that wee cannot eate him otherwise than his disciples did in the first Supper. 2. He truely ascen∣ded out of earth into heauen. 3. Such is our eating of him, as his abiding is in vs. 4. All the Saints of the old and new Testament haue the same vnion with Christ. 5 Christ onely is able to offer himselfe vnto his Father. Now it is necessarie in the vse of the Supper to craue of God remission of sinnes. Wherefore if he bee present at the bread, we must craue of him, and so wee offer the bread. But in the New testament it is not law∣full to direct our prayer to any certaine place. 6. The bles∣sings which are promised vnto the godly onely, are spirituall. Vnto these and other fore alleaged reasons commeth the con∣sent of the auncient Fathers, Ambrose, Athanasius, Austine, Basil, Bede, Bertram, Chrysostome, Clemēs Alexandrinus, the coun∣cell of Nice, Ciprian, Cyrill, Denis, Gelasius, Gregorie the Great, Gregorie Nazianzene, Hezichius, Hierom, Hilarie, Irenaeus, Justine, Leo, Macharius, Origen, Procopius, Gaza, Tertullian, and so forth.

THE SECOND APPENDIX OR AD∣DITION. Arguments, whereby the opinion of Vbiquitaries is refelled, and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed.

THE FIRST ARGVMENT.

THE Marcionites and Manichees imagined that Christ had not a true and solid bodie, but onely made shew of the shape of a bodie, so that hee seemed onely to haue flesh and bones, whereas indeed hee had them not: And further that the verie incarnation, and al the motions and operations of christ did but only seeme so in outward appearāce, whereas in the truth of the thing there was no such thing done. Now the opinion of Vbiquitie, and of the reall communicating of the properties of both natures doth raise againe from Hel that phantasticall dotarie and frensie of those heretiques. Therefore it is no lesse to bee abandoned and banished out of the church to Hell, than that heresie of the Manichees. That this opi∣nion of Vbiquitie doth giue life againe to the former, wee

proue. The Vbiquitaries are of opinion, and so teach, That all the properties of the Godhead were presently, from the verie point of Christs conception, reallie effused from the Godhead of the woorde into the humane nature which christ tooke. Hence these absurdities will folow. 1. Christ shall not be truely borne of the Virgine, if as touching the nature of his humanitie he was truely and essentiallie without the wombe of his mother before hee was borne; and after hee was borne hee re∣mained no lesse truely and substantiallie, as touching his humani∣tie, in that selfe-same wombe, than before. 2. Christ was not truely weake in his humane nature and subiect to passions, if hee were then also as touching the same nature partaker of the Diuine ma∣iestie and omnipotencie. 3. Hee was not truely dead, if also in the time of his death, as touching his soule and bodie, hee were essenti∣allie present euerie where together with his Godhead. For the soul being euerie where present could not be really separa∣ted, in distance of places from the bodie, which also should be euerie where present, and so neither could the body die, but onely in outward appearance and imagination. 4. Hee ascended not truely into heauen: but it shall be saide to haue beene onely a vaine and imaginarie, and phantasticall spectacle▪ if hee were in his bodie substantiallie there, before hee visiblie ascended thither: and after he was ascended thither, he remained yet, in the substantiall presence of the same bodie, no lesse truely, than before, on the earth, yea and in the verie bodies also of the faithfull. If these thinges so fel out in the truth of the thing; it will fol∣low that the same bodie of Christ was indeede at once and together both weake and omnipotent, base and glorious, subiect to sufferinges, and not subiect, dead and aliue, limi∣ted and vnlimited; which is horrible to affirme For auoi∣ding therefore of these prodigious and impious absurdities they will except, that he was not as touching his body, otherwise than limited, weak, subiect to passions, and mortal, in the time of his humiliation: because he had debased himselfe, and would not shew forth that maiestie, communicated vnto his bodie before his resur∣rection. Aunswere. They interpret amisse that debasing of himselfe, of all the glorie and maiestie of his humanity hid∣den and kept close for a time: whereas it is to bee vnder∣stoode in respect of the diuinitie of the Worde, in that hee woulde take the forme of a seruant, that is, the masse of our

nature, and become man. Moreouer it will folow, that christ did shew forth the communicated power and maiesty of his flesh, euen then, when he was indeed weak and limited or circumscribed in bodie: as when shedding teares he rai∣sed Lazarus from the dead, and when being apprehended by the Iewes hee healed Malchus whom Peter wounded. Now what is it else to raise the Marcionites vp againe from hell, or in the greatest matter of all others impiously to blaspheme, if this bee not?

THE SECOND ARGVMENT.

THE blasphemie of Samosatenus, Arrius, & the late Anti∣trinitaries, is this: That Christ, man, is not properlie and by nature God, but onlie by an accidental participation of di∣uine properties, maiestie, honour, power, and vertue. The Vbiquita∣ries also maintaine the same consideration of the God-heade of Christ, man, while they define the personall vnion by his communi∣cating alone of properties, whereby the flesh of Christ is made om∣nipotent and euerie where. So that now that man is, and is called God, not that he is properlie & by nature God, but because infinit power, maiestie, and glorie is giuen him from God, and all the gifts of the holie Ghost are bestowed on him without measure. Now this accidentall bestowing of the Godhead and all the properties, doth not make christ to be properlie and by nature God, but onelie by diuine grace, or God vnproperlie so called: Because it is not the verie essential God-head of the Word, but a certaine participation thereof, in vertue and eff••cacie. And therefore was it obiected by the sounder Fathers vnto the Arrians, that they tooke awaie the true and eternall God-head of christ, when they made him a God not by nature, but by grace, by participation onlie of dignitie and maiestie. Therefore seeing the Vbiquitaries also equalling our Im∣manuel with God by participation of properties onlie, take awaie his true and eternal God head: wee doe discl••me and accurse this their doctrine as blasphemous and heretical. And that they doe this, their owne words and opinions witnesse; as Brentius, and Iacobus Andraeas, and others of them in their wri∣tings. Whence wee conclude, that the Vbiquitaries holde the same opinion with the Arrians and Antitrinitaries, of the God-head of Christ, man•• that is, that all these esteem him for God not by nature, but onely by grace of partici∣pation, new, temporarie, created, adopted. If these thinges

bee true, Christ shal not bee God and man, but a diuine man, such as the Vbiquitaries also repute him, who, as Seruetus, hold this opinion: That God can communicate the fulnes of his God-heade, giue his diuinitie, maiestie, power and glorie vnto man. But wee execrate and detest the same blasphemie of both.

THE THIRD ARGVMENT.

NEstorius taught, That the vnion of God the Word with man was wrought by the participation onelie of equality, as tou∣ching maiesty, honour, power, vertue, and operation. Neither doth he make the differēce, of the dwelling of the Word in mans nature which himselfe tooke, and in other Saintes, to consist in anie other thing than in those giftes and graces bestowed by God on man. The selfe same also doe the Vbiquitaries teach, because they crie that there is no difference betweene the inhabiting and dwelling of the God-head in Peter, and in Christ, except it bee taken from the communication of the giftes or properties of the God-heade. And they contend that by this means this man, which was takē by the Word, is God, because the Word doth nothing without him, but al things by him. This is nothing els, than to make christ man, onelie God by an accident. Wherefore the doctrine of Vbiquitie is altogether the same with Nestorius heresie. Tertullian saith: Jf Christ be man onlie, how then is he present eueriewhere being cal∣led vpon and inuocated, seeing this is not the nature of man, but of God, to be able to be present in al places? By this testimony is re∣futed the Vbiquity of the human nature in Christ. Obiect. But the vnion of the diuine & human nature in Christ is vnsepa∣rable. Therefore wheresoeuer the diuine nature is, there is also the humane nature. Aunsw. It is true which is said, that the vnion is vnseparable. The Worde neuer forsaketh the nature once assumed and taken. But the Word is not in the humane na∣ture, as the soule is included in my bodie. Wheresoeuer my bodie is, there must my soule needes be, neither is my soul at the same time without my bodie. But the Worde is not so in Christ, man: but hee is so vnseparably and personally in the humane nature, as that he is together also without the humane nature in all the partes of the world, as hee filleth al, and in holy men and Angels by his special presence. The personall vnion of both natures dooth not euert the gene∣ral action and woorking of his presence and maiestie, nei∣ther

doth it let or hinder the speciall woorking of his pre∣sence: because the Word is effectual, and worketh forcibly in the regenerate.

The generall points wherein the churches which professe the Gospell, agree or disagree in the controuersie concer∣ning the Lordes Supper. They agree in these points.

FIRST, that as wel the Supper of the Lord as Baptisme, is a vi∣sible pledge and testimonie annexed by Christ himselfe to the promise of grace, to this ende chiefly, that our faith in this promise might be confirmed and strengthned.

Secondly, that in the true vse of the supper, as well as in al o∣ther sacraments, two things are giuen by god vnto vs, & are recei∣ued of vs, namelie, earthly, externall, and visible signs, as are bread and wine; and besides these, also heauenlie, internall, and inuisible gifts, as are the true bodie of Iesus Christ together with al his gifts and benefits, and heauenlie treasures.

Thirdly, that in the supper we are made partakers not onlie of the spirit of Christ and his satisfaction, iustice, vertue, and opera∣tion, but also of the verie substaunce and essence of his true-bodie and bloud, which was giuen for vs to death on the crosse, and which was shed for vs; and are trulie fed with the selfe-same vnto eter∣nal life: and that this verie thing christ should teach vs and make knowen vnto vs by this visible receiuing of this bread and wine in his supper.

Fourthly, That the bread and wine are not changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ, but remaine true and natural bread and wine: that also the bodie and bloud of christ are not shut vp into the bread and wine, and therefore the bread and wine are called of christ his bodie and bloud, in this sense, for that his bodie and bloud are not onlie signified by these, and set before our eies, but also be∣cause as often as we eat and drink this bread and wine, in the true and right vse, Christ himselfe giueth vs his body and bloud indeed to be the meat and drink of eternal life.

Fiftly, That without the right vse this receiuing of bread and wine is no sacrament, neither anie thing, but an emptie and vaine ceremonie and spectacle, and such as men abuse to their own dam∣nation.

Sixtly, That there is no other true and lawful vse of the supper,

besides that, which Christ himselfe hath instituted, and commaun∣ded to be kept, namelie this: that this bread and this wine be eaten and drunken in remembrance of him, and to shew forth his death.

Seuenthly, that Christ in his supper dooth not commaund and require a dissembled and hypocritical remembraunce of him and publishing of his death: but such as embraceth his passion and death, and all his benefites obtained by these for vs, by a true and liuelie faith, and with earnest and ardent thankefulnesse, and ap∣plieth them vnto those which eate and drink as proper vnto them.

Eightly, that Christ will dwell in beleeuers onelie, and in them, who not through contempt, but through necessitie cannot come to the Lords supper, yea in al beleeuers, euē from the beginning of the woorld to all eternitie, euen as well and after the same manner, as hee will dwell in them, who came vnto the Lords Supper.

They disagree in these pointes.

FIRST, that one part contendeth, that these woordes of Christ, This is my bodie, must be vnderstood, as the words sound, which yet that part it selfe doth not: but the other part, that those words must be vnderstoode sacramentallie, according to the declaration of Christ and Paul, according to the most certaine and vnfallible rule and leuil of the articles of our christian faith.

Secōdly, that one part wil haue the bodie & bloud of christ to be essentiallie Jn or With the bread & wine, & so to be eaten, as that together with the bread & the wine, out of the hād of the mi∣nister, it entereth by the mouth of the receiuers into their bodies: but the other part wil haue the body of christ, which in the first sup∣per sate at the table by the disciples, now to be & cōtinue, not here on earth, but aboue in the heauens, aboue and without this visible world and heauen, vntill hee descend thence againe to iudgement: and yet that we notwithstanding here on earth, as oft as wee eate this bread with a true faith, are so fed with his bodie, and made to drink of his bloud, that not onlie through his Passion and bloud∣shed we are cleansed from our sinnes, but are also in such sort cou∣pled, knit and incorporated into his true, essential, humane bodie, by his spirit dwelling both in him and vs, as that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and are more neerly, and firmlie knit and vnited with him, than the members of our bodie are vnited with our head, and so wee drawe and haue in him and from him euerlasting life.

Thirdly, That one part will haue all whosoeuer come to the Lordes supper and eate and drinke that breade and wine, whether they bee beleeuers, or vnbeleeuers, to eate and drinke corporallie and with their bodilie mouth the flesh and bloud of Christ; belee∣uers, to life and saluation; vnbeleeuers to damnation and death: the other holdeth, that vnbeleeuers abuse indeede the outwarde signs, bread and wine, to their own damnation: but that the faith∣ful onelie can eate and drinke by a true faith, and the fore allea∣ged working of ••he holie Ghost, the bodie and bloud of Christ vnto eternal life.

Notes

• Why it is called a Supper.
• Why a conuent.
• Why, the Eu∣charist. Why, a sacrifice. Why, Missa.
• The definition of the Lordes Supper.
• The Signes and thinges signified in the Lordes Supper.
• Synaxis.
• The Lordes sup∣per may not bee celebrated by one alone.
• The same thing is sealed in Bap∣tisme, and the Supper, but the manner of ••e••∣ling is diuers.
• The Transub∣sta•••••••• and Consubstantia∣ries relie not on the simple mea∣ning of Christes words.
• These Greeke pronouns cānot bee expressed with the like English parti∣cle••. Because the woordes, BREAD, and BODY, being of diuerse genders in Greeke, the Greek pronouns also are diuer••e: when a•• in Eng¦lish our particle THIS serueth for woordes of all genders.
• Berith.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Two causes why the thinge, sig¦nified are attri∣buted to the signes.
• The originall of the woord Mis∣sa, which we call the Masse.
• Tertul. li. 4. con∣tra Mar. Cypr. de bono patient. & epist. 4. li. 3.
• a

  de remissa peccatorum.
• b

  daturus remis∣sam peccato∣rum.
• The repugnan∣cie of the Masse with the Lords supper.
• The causes, for which the wic∣ked are saide to eate vnto them∣selues damnati∣on.
• The godly onely ought to ap∣proch vnto the supper.
• Not Infants.
• Not the wicked, and hypocrites.
• Brentius in re∣cog. p. 20. Andrae. Thes. 20. disp Tubing. and Thes. 25. and 26. And Apol. Ing. 26.
• Lib. 1. de Trini∣cate.
• Tertul. lib. de Trinit. p. 610.