IT is not mine intent (most Re­uerend Father, Right Honoura­ble, Right Worshipfull, and in the Lord beloued) to speake a­ny thing at this time cōcerning the Author of this Sacrament of the Bodie & Bloud of Christ, concerning the time when it was ordained, concer­ning the ende why it was ordained, or concerning a­ny other circumstāces hereunto belonging; but one­ly so farre forth, as the controuersie betweene vs and the Papistes shall leade mee. Which controuersie and dissention may not bee passed ouer without dili­gent [Page 2] examination, and due consideration, considering that our aduersaries in their grosse and absurd opi­nion, rent with their teeth him that made them, and so dishonour him, whome they ought to honour. Now, all the reason that they build vpon, is but the wordes onely of the Institution. Christ saide, This is my bodie: Ergo say they, it is his Bodie. Where­unto I might answere, that by like argument they may prooue as well that Christ is a Doore; because hee sayth I am that doore: or that hee is a naturall Vine; because hee sayth, I am that true Vine. But aun­swering Iohn, 10, 9. & 15. 1. I do saie with Saint Hierome, That the Gospell standeth not in the bare wordes of the Scrip­tures but in the meaning. As also aunswering, I do say with Saint Augustine, that there is nothing spoken obscurely in one place of Scripture, which is not made plaine and verie cleare in some other: And that therefore wee may not (like men factious rather then religious) bring our owne senses to the reading of the Scriptures; but wee are to take the sense that the Scripture giueth, by conferring one Scripture with another: for otherwise, to take a fi­guratiue speech properly and according to the let­ter, destroyeth the soule. Saint Augustine in his Booke De doctrina Christiana, giueth diuerse lear­ned Lessons, whereby to knowe a figuratiue speech; one of which lessons is this: If the Scripture see­meth to cōmand a wicked thing & vngodly, or to for­bid a thing that charitie requireth, then knowe (sayth hee) that the speach is figuratiue. According to which rule, and direction, Christ his wordes in the Institution of this Sacrament are to bee vnderstood [Page 3] figuratiuely: for, Christ commaunding at his last Supper to eate his Bodie and to drinke his Bloude, seemed to commaund in sound of wordes an in­conuenience and a wicked thing. Yea, to say that the breade is Christes Bodie in proper speach and according to the letter, is horrible blasphemie: for if bread in proper speach bee the flesh of Christ, then bread is also the seed of Dauid: then bread was fastened to the Crosse for our sinnes: then breade Blush at this yee Papistes. was buried, rose the thirde day from death, and now sitteth in heauen at the right hand of GOD the Father: yea, if bread be Christ, then is bread the Son of God, and second person in the sacred Trinity. Nay, no question if bread bee truely and properly Christ according to a literall and carnall construction: then (besides these monstrous impieties, which cannot be auoyded) it must needes ensue, that really wee eate Christes flesh in the sacrament with our mouthes, & actually drinke his bloud with our lippes; which is a thing hainous and horrible in Christian religion & behauiour: yea, as S. Augustine auoucheth, It is more horrible to eat mans flesh thē to kil it, and to drink mans bloud thē to shed it. But some peraduenture obiecting will say, that Christ said, My flesh is meate indeed, and Ioh. 6. my bloud is drink indeed. Wherunto in answering, it behoueth to make a difference between the bodie of Christ and the Sacrament of his body, least wee bee deceiued, and take one for another. And therefore Note this dif­ference. Tra. 26. In Ioh. I do say with Saint Augustine, that the Sacrament (of Christs body) is receiued of some vnto life, and of some vnto destruction: but the thing it selfe (that is, the flesh of Christ) whereof this is a Sacrament, is [Page 4] receiued of all men vnto life, and of no man to destruc­tion; yea, his flesh is so truely meate, and his blood is so truely drinke, as that whosoeuer doubteth of this wee hold him accursed: but, for what part of man (soule, or body) this meat was prouided, in this stāds the difference betweene vs and the Papistes. They say, for the body, no lesse then for the soule: wee say for the soule, and not for the body: Now to make this point plaine on our side, and so to ende this con­trouersie; if their mouthes bee not farre out of taste, I will plainely proue by testimonies of the holie Scriptures, as also of the holy ancient Fathers, that Christ his flesh and bloud is sustenance not for the body, but onely for the soule. Doe you not knowe (sayth Christ) that whatsoeuer thing from without Mar. 7. entreth into a man, cānot defile him: because it entreth not into his hart, but into the bellie. Whereby it appea­reth euen in the iudgement of our Sauiour, that no­thing can enter both the heart and the bellie: but the flesh of Christ entreth into the heart: Ergo, not into the bellie. Saint Paul likewise sayeth, Meates 1. Cor. 6. are ordained for the bellie, and the belly for meates; but God will destroy both it, and them: but the body of Christ God will not destroy: it is therefore no meate for the belly. To bee short, that which doth either defile or sanctifie, is not meat for the belly: for meates do not commend vs vnto God, 1. Cor. 8. 8. But Christ with his bloud doth sanctifie, Heb. 13, 12. Ergo, Christ his flesh and bloud is not meate for the belly.

Other arguments to this effect, and to set foorth the truth hereof, I could vse many: but let these and [Page 5] all other proofes bee voyde, if the learned auncient Fathers do not hereunto subscribe, and euen con­clude the verie same point. Saint Chrysostome sayth, Christ is the Bread, which feedeth not the bodie, but Chrysost. In Mat. 9. the soule, and filleth not the bellie, but the minde. Ambrose, Hee is not bodilie, but ghostly meate. Augustine, It is not lawfull to deuoure Christ with teeth. Prepare not your Iawes, but your heartes. Aug. de cons. Dist. 2. Cypr. de. Coena Dom. And Saint Cyprian sayth, The bodie of Christ is cibus mentis, non ventris, is meate for the minde, not for the bellie: not for the teeth to chewe, but for the soule to beleeue. The Testimonie of all which good and lawfull witnesses, is sufficient to remoue vs from the corporall eating of Christs flesh with teeth and iawes. Indeede touching the visible part of this Sacrament, as the bread and wine, which is seene with eyes, felt with hands, and brused with teeth, of that there is no doubt, but it entereth our mouthes and resteth in our bowels: but to say, that the naturall flesh of Christ entereth the mouth, or passeth downe the throat, or lodgeth in the Sto­macke, is a position (as you haue heard) altoge­ther repugnant both to the holie Scriptures, and holy Fathers. But our aduersaries the Papistes be­ing willing to presse the truth, though they cannot oppresse it, will peraduenture obiect and say, Christ is Almightie and can do all thinges; therefore being A possibili ad esse, non valet consequentia. able to turne breade into his bodie at his last Sup­per, hee did it. Whereunto I might replie, that GOD was able to make vs Swine, Sheepe, Oxen, Horses, Frogges, Dogges, &c. yet hee hath not done so: But aunswering, I do say, that though God [Page 6] is able to do whatsoeuer he wil, yet he wil do none of those thinges that bee not in him of their owne nature. Sith then, that GOD is true of his owne nature, hee canne doe nothing, that is a­gainst his worde: not because that hee is not a­ble to do it, but because his Power doth neuer ouertwharte and crosse his Will. Indeede hee is Almightie in working his will: but not in chan­ging his nature; for that which hee will not, that hee doth not: and therefore to imagine what wee list, and then to father our falshoodes on Christes Almightie power, is errour, impietie, yea, insolent blasphemie. But passing ouer this Popish argument from can to will, whereupon no argument followeth: I will now plainely proue by the worde of trueth, and testimonie also of aun­cient Writers, that the bread in the Sacrament is not the substance, but a signe of Christes bodie: and that the nature of it remaineth (howsoeuer the popish sort iangle) after the wordes of con­secration. Christ at his last Supper tooke no­thing but breade, hee brake nothing but breade, hee gaue into the handes of his Disciples, to eate, nothing but breade, and (as appeareth by my Text) hee called nothing his body, but euen the same breade, which hee had taken, which he had broken, and which hee gaue vnto them. Now, in thus calling the breade his bodie, it was in my­sterie and figure, not in nature and substance: and therefore it is but as if hee had sayde, This breade which I haue in my handes is a signe of my body which shortly after shall bee crucified, and deliuered [Page 7] vnto death for your saluation. To which effect, after this manner thus speaketh Saint Cyprian: Dedit do­minus Cypr. de vncti­one Chrisma­tis. noster in mensa, in qua vltimum cum Apostolis participauit conuiuium, &c. Our Lord at the Table, whereat he receiued his last Supper with his Disci­ples, gaue with his owne hands bread and wine: but vpon the Crosse, he gaue his own body to be woun­ded by the hands of the souldiers. Where hee ma­keth a difference betweene that which Christ gaue vpon the Crosse, and that which hee gaue at the Table: at the Table hee gaue bread and wine; vpon the Crosse, hee gaue his bodie and bloud. Likewise else where, hee calleth the bread after consecration, Panem ex multorum granorum adunatione congestum. Bread made of the substance, and moulding of many cornes. Wherunto Saint Augustine subscribing, thus Aug in Psal. 98. speaketh in the person of Christ: This body which you see you shall not eate, neither shall you drinke the bloud which they that crucifie mee shall shedde: I haue commended a Sacrament vnto you, which spi­ritually vnderstoode shall quicken you. But to bee short, Saint Paule, (who setteth foorth fully and most effectually both the doctrine and right vse of the Lords Supper) is well worthie to decide this con­trouersie, where diuers times in one piece of a Chapter after the wordes of consecration hee re­peates 1. Cor. 11. the word, Bread. In conclusion therefore it must needes followe and bee graunted, striue the pieuish and peruerse Papistes neuer so much against it, that the name of the thing signified is giuen in this place to the signe it selfe: which is a figure, not straunge or newe; [Page 8] but vsuall and common, where mention is made of Sacraments: for, the Lorde, speaking of Circumcision, calleth it the Couenant: yet circumcision is not the Gen. 17. couenant, but a signe of the couenant. And the Paschall Lambe is called the Lords Passeouer, though it was not the Passeouer, but the signe of the Passeo­uer, Exod. 12. & serued onely to put men in remēbrance of that benefit; as it is afterward expounded: but leauing the holy scriptures, I will now proue the verie same point by the Authoritie of the holy Fathers. Saint Augu­stine in his booke of Questions vpon Leuiticus, hath these wordes: Solet res quae significat, eius rei nomi­ne quam significat, nuncupari. That is, The thing that Aug. super Lev. quaest. 57. doth signifie, is wont to bee called by the name of the thing that it doth signifie. And in the Epistle which hee wrote to Bonifacius: Si enim Sacramenta quan­dam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta Idem ad Boni­facium. Epist. 13. sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent: ex hac autem similitudine, plerunque etiam ipsarum no­mina accipiunt. If the Sacraments (saith he) had not some certaine similitude of the things whereof they be Sacraments, they should be no Sacraments: and of this similitude, many times they haue the names of those thinges themselues. Whereunto Theodore­tus Theod. Dial. 1. agreeth, and speaking of Christ thus subscribeth: Hee that did call his body wheate and bread, and him­selfe a vine, doth honour the bread and wine with the name of his bodie, and bloud, not chaunging the Na­ture, but adding grace vnto the Nature. And Saint Chrysostome hath the verie like wordes. Whereby Chrysost. ad Caesarium. it appeareth, and euen hereupon may rightly bee in­ferred, that the Romane transubstantiators haue no [Page 9] ground of reason, to affirme that there is more tran­substantiation in the Supper, by chaunge of the sub­stance of the signes, into the thing signified by the vertue of consecration, then in all the other Sacra­ments. For if there were such a change of substance, by the vertue of the Sacramentall wordes, and of the consecration of the signes, it should necessarily then come to passe, that the same should bee in all Sacra­ments, Note well. and not more in the one, then in the other; forsomuch as there is none at all that may bee Sa­craments without consecration, and without Sacra­mentall words, and they haue all this common toge­ther, and the like reason is in them all, concerning this point. But to bee short, and yet for more full contentation, & euen to giue satisfaction to the sim­plest here present, that the signe is called by the name of the thing signified, and that there is no mutation in the substance of it, but onely in the vse; I do for further proofe in this behalfe, appeale to the outward senses: as, to the eyes, nose, mouth, taste, hands, and e­uen to the reason of man, what it is, that wee doe receiue, when wee come at the feast of Easter, and at other times to the Lords Table. Whereunto in an­swering if these senses iumpe and agree, that it is bread and wine consecrated to a holy and heauenly vse; they verilie speake the truth and lye not: for there was neuer any transubstantiation and conuersion of one substance into another, but the outwarde senses iudged it to be so. As for example, when the rodde Exod. 4. was turned into a Serpent, the Israelites sawe it: And when water was turned into wine at a Mariage, the guests saw it, and tasted it. But now in this Sacra­ment Ioh. 2. 8. [Page 10] we do not see any such mutation: the bread be­ing sanctified taketh not the forme of flesh, neither doth the wine appeare to be bloud, but, as signes, do remaine all one in quantitie and qualitie, without al­teration of substance. Whereby (beloued) albeit it ap­peareth, as also by that which formerly hath beene deliuered, that our cōstruction concerning the words of the institution, is consonant & right agreeable not onely to learning and religion, but to common sense also and reason: yet vtterly to ouerthrowe the false doctrine of popish transubstantiation, and to put it out of doubt, that we eate not Christs bodie carnally as our aduersaries dreame and grossely imagine, I wil now ouerturne by force of arguments and suffici­ent reasons, the turning of the bread into the Body of Christ, and the wine into his bloud, though many as concerning this point (which yeelde from other points of superstition) do sticke, and are verie hard to be perswaded.

That the substance of bread remaineth in the Sa­crament The first reasō against tran­substantion. after the wordes of consecration, I will first proue it from the definition of a Sacrament. For the Fathers do affirme it to consist of an earthlie August. Chrysost. thing, and of an heauenly thing: of the Word, and of the Element. Now for the element and earthly thing to bee taken away by transubstantiation, is a­gainst, and euen vtterly destroyeth, the verie nature of a Sacrament. And therefore from the definition thereof wee are well taught and instructed, that the bread, which is the element and earthly thing, remai­neth still in substance without alteration, as well af­ter as before the consecration; according to this say­ing [Page 11] of Saint Augustine: The word commeth to the Element, (he sayth not taketh away the Element) and so it is made a Sacrament.

Againe, in Baptisme the substance of Water re­maineth, The second reason. though it hath wordes of consecration, and is made a Sacrament of our Regeneration: and therefore in the Lords Supper, the bread and wine are not changed and done away vtterly: for the Scrip­ture speaketh as highly of the one as of the o­ther.

Againe, if the Elements of bread and wine The third rea­son. are conuerted into the verie Bodie and Bloude of Christ: then the verie reprobates, as Iudas, should truely feede on the Bodie and Bloud of Christ, and so should bee saued: but this is false, and flat against the Scripture; Ergo, there is not any such conuer­sion.

Againe, if the Papistes receiue Christs bodie in The fourth reason. the Sacrament, then they receiue either his mortall, or his immortall body. If they say, they receiue his mortall bodie: I might answere, that it cannot pro­fitte them; because mortall foode, is but for this mortall life: but I aunswere, that CHRIST hath not a mortall Bodie to communicate vnto them; for it is now chaunged, and hath putte on immortalitie. If they say, they receiue his immortall, and glorified Bodie, then like men slaine with their owne swordes, they must flie from this their text, Hoc est corpus meum; be­cause at the time when CHRIST spake these wordes to his Disciples hee had no glorified body: for the Sacrament was instituted before his death, [Page 12] and his body was not glorified vntill after his resur­rection.

Againe, if the Papistes receiue the verie same The fift reason. bodie of Christ in the sacrament, which he had from the Virgine Marie, and which was on the Crosse; thē it must haue the same naturall properties of a Body which that had, as proportion of shape, distinction of partes, extention of quantitie, circumscription of place, and the verie same substance of flesh, which he tooke of his Mother Marie: for these properties had Christes Body, that hung on the Crosse: but the bread (which they say, is turned into Christs Body) Note here a great absurdi­tie. is without these and such like properties of mans na­ture: Ergo, the bread is not turned really and substan­tially into the body of Christ which came from the Virgine Marie, and which was offered for vs on the Crosse.

Againe, the breade in the Sacrament after the The seauenth reason. wordes of consecration is subiect to as many chaun­ges and chances as it was before: it may putrifie, and the wine may wax sharpe and turne into vinegar; yea, both of them may be mingled with ranke poyson: but the precious Body & Bloud of Christ cānot be ming­led with poyson; but is an excellent counterpoyson against all infection of sinne whatsoeuer: the Bodie of Christ cannot putrifie, the bloud of Christ can­not become sharpe or sowre as the outwarde signes may: the substance therefore of bread & wine is not changed into the bodie and bloud of Christ, but remaineth still, after the wordes of consecra­tion.

Againe, Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, The eight rea­son. [Page 13] (Hebrewes, 1.) and there shall remaine, touching his humanitie (as Saint Peter teacheth) vntill the time that all thinges bee restored which God hath spoken by his Prophets, Acts, 3. Ergo, Christ is not bodily pre­sent in the Sacrament: for it is against the nature of a natural body to be in moe places then one at once. And therefore said Saint Augustine: Corpus domini in quo resurrexit, in vno loco esse oportet; veritas eius vbique diffusa est: the Bodie of Christ in the which he rose can be but in one place, though his trueth is dispersed euerie where.

Againe, we are charged to do this in remēbrance The ninth rea­son. 1. Cor. 11. of Christ; Do this (sayth hee) in remembrance of me, in remembrance of my benefit wrought for you, & in remembrance of your saluation purchased by me. Now, remembrance is not of things present, but of thinges absent.

Againe, it is recorded in the same Chapter, that The tenth rea­son. whensoeuer wee eate the Lords Bread and drinke of his Cuppe, wee are sayde but to shewe his death vntill hee come: so that it is but a shewe and Representation of his Death, vntill his com­ming.

Lastly (to omitte many other reasons) wee be­leeue The eleuenth reason. that Christ shall come from heauen, and from no other place to iudge the quicke and the dead, and that in the same manner hee ascended: but if Christs Bodie bee made of breade, hee shall start out of the Pixe, and not come from heauen; yea, and that in Note this wel. another shape then when hee ascended. Which po­pish wonder, with other their strange deuises, so sauou­reth of noueltie, that vnlesse our aduersaries haue still [Page 14] whorish forheades they will blush and be ashamed: yea, and that the rather, in that against these and ma­ny such like arguments, and diuine reasons, they can­not alledge any one testimonie of Scripture to proue their transubstantiation; but onely that Christ sayde, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my Body. Which words (as formerly appeareth) are not to bee vnderstoode properly, but figuratiuely: not naturally, but signi­ficatiuely: not carnally, but spiritually. Yea, besides that which alreadie hath beene vttered, if the ho­ly auncient Fathers, in thus expounding them, make not with vs expressely, and against our said aduersa­ries The auncient Fathers affirme the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue. directly, then the victorie shall bee theirs, and the shame and ouerthrowe ours: yea, then with the foole I will foolishly say, Non putâram. Tertulli­an, being a holy Writer, and a verie auncient Father Lib. 4. Contr. Marcion. (for hee liued more then 1300. yeares since) expoun­deth them thus in his fourth booke against the here­tike Marcion: Acceptum panem, & distributum dis­cipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus meum: id est, figura corporis mei.

Christ taking the bread and distributing to his Disciples, made it his Body; saying, This is my Body: that is to say, this is a figure of my Bodie.

And in his first booke against the same Here­tike, the same Authour writeth after this manner: Idem, lib. 1. God did not reiect bread which is his creature; for by it he hath made a representation of his Bodie.

Saint Chrysostome saith, The bread sanctified is Chrysost, ad Caesar. counted worthie to bee called the Lords Body, etsi na­tura panis in ipso permansit, though the nature of the bread remaine there still.

Theodoretus, aunswering to the obiection of an Dialog. 2. heretike, is right plaine in this point: for sayeth hee, Signa mystica post sanctificationem non recedunt a na­tura sua, sed manent in priori substantia, et figura, & forma. That is, The mysticall tokens after the sancti­fication depart not from their owne nature, but re­maine in their former substance, figure, and shape; yea, and are sensiblie seene to be the verie same they were before.

Saint Hierome, speaking of Christ, sayth, He of­fered not water but wine, for the figure of his bloud. Saint Ambrose sayeth, that the bread and Ambr. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4. wine are the verie same they were, both in nature and substance.

And Saint Augustine hath written at large in many of his workes, and so plainely, against the er­ror of transubstantiation, that our aduersaries the Papistes loue least to heare of him of all other wri­ters: partly for his authoritie, and partly because hee openeth the matter more fully then any other. For sayth hee, Christes flesh and bloud was in the August. Contr. Faustū. olde Testament promised by similitudes and signes of their sacrifices, and was exhibited indeed and in truth vpon the Crosse: but the same is now celebrated by a Sacrament of remembraunce vpon the Altar. Like­wise against the heretike Adimantus, he thus wri­teth: Contr. Adim. lib. 4. Non dubitauit dominus dicere, hoc est corpus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui. Our Lorde doubted not (sayth he) to say, This is my body, when hee gaue a token of his Bodie. In an other place also, Christ tooke Iudas (sayth hee) vnto his Table, Idem in psal. 3. wherat he gaue vnto his Disciples the figure of his body. [Page 16] Yea, and to this verie Sacrament hee applyeth this rule, Omnis res naturam et veritatem illarum rerum in se continet, ex quibus conficitur: that is, euerie thing keepeth and containeth the nature and truth of those things, of which it consisteth.

Now (most Reuerēd, & right blessed brethrē) if these & other reuerend olde Fathers, writing to like effect, haue expounded the wordes of Christ rightly, then where is the papists transubstantiation?

Surely, surely (deare Christians) how rightly and religiously they are by the Fathers expounded, it may wel be conceiued, in that not any one of the auncient writers euer spake of reall presence, or the literall sense of these words, This is my Body: yea, let our aduer­saries the Papists bring but one Catholick and godly learned Father, for the space of 700. years after Christ, that euer taught Popish transubstantiation, or that signified and insinuated any such matter; and we will not onely thereunto subscribe, but account also al o­ther their vaine and vncatholike fancies, to bee right Catholike doctrine. But men, brethren, and Fathers, the best learned of that frowarde generation are so far from pleading either Canonicall Scriptures, or Ca­tholike Fathers, as that either they say directly (as did Alphonsus a great Papist) that the auncient Fathers neuer knew transubstantiation; Or else doubtfully (as did Gabriel Biel, another popish doctor) that how the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament, it is not found ex­pressed Vpon the Ca­non, lect. 40. in the Canon of the Bible: Or else they say de­ceitfully (like craftie hucksters) that they must hold of the Sacraments as the Church of Rome doth. Which third and last affirmation being fond and foo­lish, [Page 17] is vtterly to be contemned and condemned: for Transubstantiation was neuer heard of at Rome, or in any other part of the world, vntil it was there decreed in the late councell of Laterane, holden vnder Pope Innocentius the third, in the yeare of our Lorde God The age of the Papists new transubstantia­tion is 393, yeares. 1215. So that for the space of twelue hūdred & fifteen years after Christ, the Church of God was well able to stand without it. Now therfore it stādeth vs in hand considering the newnesse of it, and that our Sauiour Christ in saying, This is my Bodie, did not abolish the substance of bread & wine, but did vnite the force and fruit of his flesh crucified, and bloud shed for our sins, to the elements, that so receiuing the one, wee might through faith, and by the operation of his working spirit be partakers of the other; it stands vs (I say) in hand, not to bend our mindes on the outward signes of bread & wine set before vs: but rather lifting vp our hearts from them to Christ, who liueth & reigneth in heauen, it behoueth vs to behold him the very lambe of God slaine for the sins of the world, with the eyes and hands of our faith. Nam fide tangitur Christus, fi­de videtur: non corpore tangitur, non oculis comprehen­ditur. For saith Saint Ambrose, By faith Christ is tou­ched, Ambr. in Luc. lib. 6. by faith he is seene: hee is not touched with our bodie, nor viewed with our eyes. And elsewhere: Non corporali tactu Christum, sed fide tangimus. That is, we touch not Christ (sayth he) with our fingers, but with our faith.

Saint Augustine likewise crieth: To what end pre­parest thou thy teeth and thy belly? beleeue, and thou August. in Ioh. [...]ract. 25. hast eaten. And in another place, We cannot (sayth he) handle Christ with our fingers: but with our faith wee [Page 18] may. Yea, that to beleeue in Christ is to eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, Christ himselfe thus proueth it: Hee that commeth to me shall not hunger; and he that Ioh. 6. beleeueth in me, shall neuer thirst. By which faith ac­cordingly, not we, vnder the Gospell onely, do eate Christs flesh and drinke his bloud; but the Patriarkes also, and Prophets, & people of God which liued be­fore the birth of Christ, did receiue him, and eate him, and liue by him: They did (as Saint Paule auoucheth) 1. Cor. 10. all eate the same spirituall meat, that is to say, euen the same Christ that we eate, and did all drinke of the same spiritual drinke. Whosoeuer beleeued in Christ, they were nourished by him then, as we are now. They did not see Christ: he was not yet borne, he had not yet a naturall body, yet did they eate his body: he had not yet any bloud, yet did they drinke his bloud; they be­leeued that it was he, in whom the promises shuld be fulfilled, they beleeued that hee should be that blessed seed in whom all Nations shold be blessed. Thus they beleeued, thus they receiued, and did eate his body. Wherupon, the premisses considered, it may rightly be inferred, that not our mouthes, but our minds; not our bellies, but our spirits, are nourished with the flesh & bloud of Christ: & that not by chewing, or swal­lowing; but by remembring and beleeuing that his body was wounded, & his bloud shed for our perfect and eternall redemption.

THus hauing hitherto declared (in handling the late doting deuise of transubstantiation; wherup­on in a manner dependeth all Poperie) and euen ef­fectually proued by sufficient testimonies both out of [Page 19] the holy Scriptures, and holy auncient Fathers, that the nature of the bread remaineth in the Sacrament after the words of consecration, and that there is no mutation in substance, but in vse: it now further resteth but onely to point at an another horrible point of po­pish blasphemie, and so to committe you to God.

Although (beloued) our Sauiour Christ comman­ded the Sacrament to bee ministred to all people in both kinds: yet our aduersaries the Papistes making euen him our Sauiour to haue no wit, nor vnderstan­ding what he did or said at his last supper, haue lately forbidden the mysticall Cuppe of his precious bloud to be ministred to the Laitie. Wherein how shame­fully soeuer, or rather how blasphemously these iollie fellowes, like iollie iuglers do iudge this matter: yet I am sure that the holy Scripture teacheth plainely, that the books of the auncient Writers testifie plen­tifully, and that continual practice for the space of a thousand yeares and vpwarde firmely pleadeth, and without contradiction, the contrarie. Saint Paul spea­king to the whole congregation, sayth: As often, as ye 1. Cor 11. vers. 26. 27. 28. shall eate this bread, and drinke this cuppe, yee shew the Lords death till hee come.

And againe, Whosoeuer (saith he) shal eat this bread, and drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guil­tie of the bodie and bloud of Christ.

And againe, Let euerie man (saith hee) examine himselfe, and so let him eate of this bread and drink of this cup. He doth not say, let the Pastor and Minister examine himselfe, & so drinke of this cup; but euery man, euen euery Christiā. To iustifie which expositiō frō Christ himself by a generall affirmatiue, I appeal [Page 20] to the tenor of the institution. For as it was sayd, Take yee, eate yee: so it was said at the same time to the selfe same parties, Drinke ye all of this. Which two precepts Arguments against halfe Communions. Eate ye, drinke ye, compriseth all, both Laymen and Clerkes: and therefore both sorts are either to bee ex­cluded, or else to be admitted to receiue in both kinds.

Againe, the fruit & effect of the bloud of Christ is common to the people with the Pastor: Ergo, being partners in the thing signified; the outward signe ther­of, which is the Communion of his bloud shed for the redemption of his people, ought to be diuided in­differently betweene them.

Againe, A dead mans will may not bee changed: Nothing can be put to, nothing taken out, without Gal. 3. 15. forgerie and false-hood: Ergo, the cup of saluation be­ing a part of Christs will, & testament, may not bee ta­ken away from the Laitie without sacriledge & blou­dy crueltie. And againe, if the water in Baptisme may not be taken away from the Lords people: then the cup of the new Testament may not be taken away frō them (for the bloud of Christ, whereby remission of sinnes is purchased, is represented by the wine of the Lords Supper, aswel as by the water in Baptisme): but the water in Baptisme may not be omitted or neglec­ted: Ergo, the cup of blessing may not (without great iniury done to the Lords people) be taken from them. Other arguments to this effect, & in setting forth the truth hereo [...], I could vse many: but, knowing the na­ture of this matter to bee such, as that the euidence & clearnes of the thing it selfe speaketh for the proofe thereof, I am rather now disposed to call to witnesse in this behalfe the holy auncient Fathers.

Ignatius, being a good olde Christian and con­stant Note well the consent of the Fathers. Martyr of Iesus Christ in the primitiue Church, writeth thus to the Church of Philadelphia: I exhort you, that you vse al one faith, one publique Ministerie & Ignat. ad Philad. preaching of the word, and one Eucharist: for there is but one flesh of Iesus Christ, and one bloud shed for vs; one bread broken for all, and one cup distributed to all.

Saint Cyprian, writing vnto Cornelius, saith, How do Epist. 2. we teach or prouoke them for the profession of his name to shed their bloud, if to them, going to the battail (spea­king of Martyrs) wee shall denie his bloud? or how shall we make them fit for the cuppe of Martyrdome, if we admit them not first, by right of the communion, to the cup of the Lord?

Tertullian saith, By the Sacrament of bread and of Lib. 5. aduersus Marcionem. the cuppe, we haue proued in the Gospell the veritie of the bodie & of the bloud of our Lord, against the phan­tasticall dreames of Marcion.

And Saint Chrysostome, administring the Sacra­ments Chrysost. in 2. ad Cor. Hom. 18. himselfe in the famous Citie of Constantino­ple, is so plaine in this point, that nothing can be plai­ner: for (saith he) There is a thing wherein the Priest differeth nothing from the people; as when he must re­ceiue the dreadfull Mysteries. For it is not here, as it was in the olde Law, where the Priest eate one part aad the people another, neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of those things which the Priest was: but now it is not so, but rather one body is proposed to al & one cup.

Lastly, to the end that all men may see and per­ceiue what great iniurie is done to Christian people (for whom Christ died) by Pope-catholikes, the Ro­mish [Page 22] Heretikes, especially that such false Catholikes themselues may cōfesse it, if not with their mouthes, at the least in their consciences; I will call at this time two Popes to witnesse. Pope Leo the first, in whose dayes the communion vnder both kindes was so or­dinarie and certaine, as that it was the marke whereby to knowe the Manachees, the most pernicious Here­tikes that were in the Church, thus auoucheth: They take in their vnworthie mouthes the Body of the Lord, Serm. quadrag. 4. and refuse altogether to drinke the bloud of our Re­demption; which he calleth a sacrilegious hypocrisie. And Pope Gelasius speaking not of the Manachees, De consecra. distinct. 2. cap. as Leo doth, but of other persons receiued into the Christian Church, thus vttereth his iudgement; Wee haue heard, that some hauing onely receiued the holie portion of the bodie, do abstaine from the cuppe of the If Popes tell you this tale take heede ye Papists to your consci­ences. holie bloud: but sith that they are mooued by a fond superstition, which I know not, thus to abstaine, either let them receiue the whole Sacrament, or els let them be wholly and vtterly restrained and shutte out from the same: for there can bee no diuision of this one Sacra­ment, and highe mysterie, without great Sacriledge. Whereby it appeareth, euen in the iudgement of these Popes, that if we will not incur & run into ap­parent, violent, and wilfull Sacriledge, the commu­nion must bee ministred to all men, without excepti­on, in both kindes, according to the right intention of Christ Iesus, and according to that course which the Christian world diligently obserued for the space of 1230. yeares, and euer after also (but euen in some few places onely) vntill in the late Councell of Constance a wicked decree and vngodly was [Page 23] made to the contrarie. Whereupon, Gerson a great Papist being a chiefe agent in that Councell, with other the Popes Proctours and Doctours of speciall reputation, did so beate their braines to iustifie that Acte in that Councell established, as that they almost lost their foreheades. For the considerati­ons by them alleadged, wherewith they were ledde thus to chaunge the last Will and Testament of CHRIST IESVS, are but verie poore shiftes and most miserable inducementes: as, the length of Lavmens beardes, the costlinesse of wine; the difficulties first of getting, then of keeping wine from sowring, from freezing, and breedinge of flies. All which and many such like foolish and friuolous toyes thus hatched by their owne fan­cies, being no lesse ridiculous then the fact was impi­ous, must stand for reason (if wee will bee ruled by a whorish Mother the Church of Antichrist) against all reason and religion.

Now what is mockerie, or what is iniurie to GOD and man, if it bee religion and pietie, in respect of long beards, in respect of frostes in winter, and flies in Summer, to correct Christs institution, and to chase the Lay people from the cuppe of their saluation, from the Communion of Christs bloud, and fellowshippe of his holy spirite? Surely, surely (beloued) howsoeuer these daintie Di­uines haue lately thus fallen into great blindnesse, or rather wilfull madnesse: yet vndoubtedly no Church euer resisted mangled Communions with greater ve­hemēcie thā the Church of Rome did, til couetousnes & pride blinded her eies, & hardned her heart against [Page 24] God and his sonne Christ: Which God for Christ his sake open the eyes of her corrupt Children, and so mollifie their hearts, as that they may receiue Christs holy Mysteries, not according to their owne fond fan­ce [...] & doting dreames; but according to the first insti­tution thereof, & according to the general practice of all Christian Churches in former times. For otherwise if they still lead their dayes in voluntarie blindnesse, & wilfull wickednesse, they shall die in their sinnes: ye [...], death and damnation shall be their portion for euer: because they haue pleasure in their owne inuentions, and do not giue their hearts to receiue to beleeue, & to loue the truth. From which death and damnation, hee deliuer both them and vs, who to receiue the blessed Sacrament in both kindes by his last wil com­manded vs, euen Iesus Christ the righteous: to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghost, three persons in Trinitie, one eternall, euer liuing, and euerlasting God in vnitie, be rendered all power, all praise, all might, and all maiestie, both now, and for euermore, Amen.