05. THE FIFTH SERMON, UPON THE LORD'S SUPPER.

THE FIFTH SERMON, UPON THE LORD’S SUPPER. For I have received of the Lord, that which I also have delivered unto you: to wit, that the Lord Jesus in the night that he was betrayed, took Bread, &c. 1. COR. 11.23.

W E have heard (well-beloved in Christ Jesus) in our last exercise, what names were given to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as well in the Scriptures as by the Ancients of the Latin and East Churches: we heard the chief ends wherefore, and whereunto this holy Sacrament was at first instituted: we heard the things that were contained in this Sacrament, what they were, how they are coupled, how they are delivered, and how they are received: we heard also some objections that might be objected to the contrary of this doctrine: we heard them propounded, and as God gave the grace, refuted: we heard how the faithful soul is said to eat Christ’s body, and drink Christ’s blood: We heard the manner how Christ is, or can be received of us. And we concluded in this point: That Christ Jesus the Savior of mankind, our Savior, cannot be perceived nor yet received, but by a spiritual way and apprehension. Neither the flesh of Christ, nor the blood of Christ, nor Christ himself, can be perceived but by the eye of faith; can be received but by the mouth of faith; nor can be laid hold on, but by the hand of faith.

Now faith is a spiritual thing: for faith is the gift of God, poured down into the hearts and minds of men and women, wrought in the soul of everyone, and that by the mighty working and operation of the holy Spirit. So the only way to lay hold on Christ being by faith, and faith of it own nature being spiritual, it followeth therefore that there is no way to lay hold on Christ but a spiritual way: there is not a hand to fasten on Christ but a spiritual hand, there is not a mouth to digest Christ but a spiritual mouth. The Scriptures familiarly by all these terms describe the nature and efficacy of faith.

We are said to eat the flesh of Christ by faith, and to drink his blood by faith, in this Sacrament: chiefly in doing of two things: First, in calling to our remembrance the bitter death and passion of Christ, the blood that he shed upon the cross, the Supper which he instituted in remembrance of him, before he went to the Cross: the commandment which he gave: Do this in remembrance of me: I say, we eat his flesh, and drink his blood spiritually. First in this point, in recording and remembering faithfully how he died for us, how his blood was shed upon the cross. This is the first point, a point that cannot be remembered truly, except it be wrought by the mighty power of the holy Spirit. The second point of the spiritual eating standeth in this, That I and every one of you believe firmly, that he died for me in particular: That his blood was shed on the cross, for a full remission and redemption of me and my sins. The chief and principal point of the eating of Christ his flesh & drinking of his blood, standeth in believing firmly that that flesh was delivered to death for my sins; that that blood of his was shed for the remission of my sins: and except every soul come near to himself, and firmly consent and agree, and be persuaded, that Christ died for him: that soul cannot be saved, that soul cannot eat the flesh, nor drink the blood of Christ. Then the eating of the flesh, and drinking of the blood of Christ, standeth in a faithful memory, in a firm belief, and in a true applying of the merits of the death and passion of Christ, to my own conscience in particular.

There were sundry things objected against this kind of receiving: I will not insist to repeat them: But beside all the objections which ye heard objected against this kind of spiritual receiving by faith, they say, If Christ his flesh nor his blood be not perceived, nor received, but by the Spirit, by faith in the Spirit: then say they, ye receive him but by an imagination: if he be not received carnally nor corporally, but only by the Spirit and by faith; then is he not received but by way of imagination, conceit, and fantasy. So they account faith an imagination of the mind, a fantasy and opinion, fleeting in the hearts of men. I cannot blame them to think so of faith: For as none can judge of the sweetness of honey, but they that have tasted of it: so there is none can discern nor judge of the nature of faith, but they that have felt it, and tasted in their hearts what it is. And if they had tasted and felt in their souls, what faith brings with it; alas, they would not call that spiritual Jewel, and only jewel of the soul, an imagination. They call it an imagination: and the Apostle describing it, Hebrews 11:1. calleth it a substance and substantial ground: Mark how well these two agree, An imagination, and a substantial ground. They call it an uncertain opinion, fleeting in the brain and fantasy of man: He calleth it an evidence and demonstration, in the same definition. See how directly contrary, the Apostle and they are, in the nature of faith. Upon this they infer, that as it is true in general, he cannot be delivered nor given, but that same way that he is received; and look what way anything is received, the same way it is given and delivered: So (as they say) he being received by way of imagination, he is also in their fantasy, given and delivered by way of imagination. For if he be not given, say they, to thy hand, to thy mouth, nor to thy stomach corporally: he cannot be given but by an imagination and fantastical opinion. The reason that moveth them to think that Christ cannot be theirs, nor given to them truly in effect and really, except he be given carnally, is this: That thing which is so far absent and distant from us as the heaven is from the earth, cannot be said to be given us, nor to be ours: But by our own confession, say they to us, Christ his body is as far absent from us as the heaven is from the earth: Therefore Christ his body, nor his flesh, cannot be given unto us, except by way of imagination, and so not truly nor in effect. This argument framed in this sort, would at the first sight seem to be of some force. But let us examine the proposition of it: The proposition is this; That thing which is so far absent from us as the heaven is from the earth, cannot be said to be delivered to us, to be given to us, or any ways to be ours.

Now whether is this proposition true or false? I say, this proposition is untrue, and the contrary most true. A thing may be given to us, and may become ours, though the thing in person itself be as far distant from us as the heaven is from the earth. And how prove I this? What maketh anything to be ours? What maketh any of you esteem a thing to be given unto you? Is it not a title? Is it not a just right to that thing? If ye have a just right given unto you, by him who hath power to give it and a sure title, confirmed to you by him who hath the power; though the thing that he giveth unto you, be not delivered into your hands, yet by the right and title which he granteth to you, is not the thing yours? There is no doubt of it, for it is not the nearness of the thing to my body & to my hand, that maketh the thing mine; for it may be in mine hand, and yet not belong to me. Neither is it the distance nor absence of the thing that makes it not to be mine, but it may be far absent from me and yet be mine, because the title is mine, and because I have gotten a right to it from him who hath the power to give it. So then this ground is true, It is a sure title and a just right that maketh a thing, though it be far distant from us, to be ours. But so it is, that a lively and true faith in the blood and death of Christ, maketh us to have a sure title and a good right to the flesh and blood of Christ, and to his merits: look what he merited by his death, & shedding of his blood upon the cross, all that together with himself also appertaineth to me, and that by a title and a right which I have gotten to him, of God; which is faith: And the surer that my title is, the more sure am I of the thing that is given me by the title. Now this Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, was instituted to confirm our title, to seal up our right which we have to the body and blood, to the death and passion of Christ: and so the body of Christ is said to be given to us, the blood of Christ is said to be delivered to us, when our title which we have of him, of his death, of his body and blood, is confirmed in our hearts. For this Sacrament is instituted for the growth and increase of our faith, for the increase of our holiness and sanctification: which faith the greater that it is in our hearts, the more sure are we, that Christ his death appertaineth to us. I grant as I have said, that the flesh of Christ is not delivered into my hands, his flesh is not put into my mouth, nor entereth into my stomach: Yet God forbid that thou shouldst say, He is not truly given, although Christ’s flesh be not put into thy hand, nor mouth of thy body: and wherefor should it? Hath he not appointed bread & wine for the nourishment of the body & may not that content you? Are they not sufficient to nourish you to this earthly & temporal life? Hath he not appointed Christ to be delivered to the inward mouth of thy soul, to be given into the hand of thy soul, that thy soul may seed on him and be quickened with that life wherewith the Angels live, wherewith the Son of God and God himself live? So the flesh of Christ is not appointed to nourish thy body, but to nourish thy soul in the hope, yea in the growth of that immortal life: and therefore I say, though the flesh of Christ be not delivered into the hand of thy body, yet it is delivered to that part that it should nourish: the soul is that part that it should nourish, therefore to the soul it is delivered.

Yea that Bread and that Wine are no more really delivered to the body and to the hand of the body, then the flesh of Christ is delivered to the soul and to the hand and mouth of the soul, which is faith: therefore crave no more a carnal delivery, nor think not upon a carnal receiving.

Thou must not think that either God giveth the flesh of Christ to the mouth of the body; or that thou by the mouth of thy body receivest the flesh of Christ: For ye must understand this principle in the Scriptures of God; our souls cannot be joined with the flesh of Christ, nor the flesh of Christ cannot be joined with our souls but by a spiritual band. Not by a carnal band of blood and alliance; not by the touching of his flesh with our flesh: but he is conjoined with us by a spiritual band; that is, by the power and virtue of his holy Spirit. And therefore the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 12.13. That by the means of his holy Spirit, all we who are faithful men and women, are baptized into one body of Christ. That is, we are conjoined and fastened with one Christ by the means, saith he, of one Spirit: not by a carnal band or any gross conjunction, but only by the band of the holy Spirit. That same holy Spirit that is in him, is in every one of us in some measure: and in respect one Spirit is in him and in us, therefore we are accounted all to be one body, and to be members of one spiritual and mystical body. And in the same verse the Apostle saith, we are all made to drink into one and the self-same Spirit: that is, we are made to drink of the blood of Christ. And this blood is no other thing but the quickening virtue and power that floweth from Christ, and from the merits of his death: we are made all to drink of that blood when we drink of the lively power and virtue that floweth out of that blood. So there is not a band that can couple my soul with the flesh of Christ, but only a spiritual band and a spiritual union. And therefore it is that the Apostle 1. Cor. 6.17. saith, He that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit. And John saith, that which is borne of the Spirit, is Spirit. So it is only by the participation of the holy Spirit that we are conjoined with the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus. That carnal band whether it be the band of blood which runneth through one race, or the carnal touching of flesh with flesh, that carnal band (I say) was never esteemed of by Christ. In the time that he was conversant here upon earth, he respected nothing that band: for as he witnessed himself by his own words, he never had that carnal band in any kind of reverence or estimation in respect of the spiritual band. But as for the spiritual band whereby we are coupled with him by one Spirit; he ever esteemed of this band in the time that he was conversant on earth, & in a word, he hath left the praise and commendations of the same. To let you see how lightly he esteemed of the carnal band of blood and alliance, which we esteem so much, ye may see in the eight of Luke, 20.21. for there they coming to him, say, Master, thy Mother and thy brethren stand without, and would see thee: ye shall hear his answer unto them, how little he esteemed of that carnal band; in the 21. verse, in a manner denying that band, he saith; My Mother and my brethren, are those which hear the word of God and do it. As if he would have said, it is not that carnal band yt I esteem: it is not that carnal conjunction that I reverence: it is the spiritual conjunction by the participation of his holy Spirit; whereby we are moved to hear the word of God, to give reverence to it and obey it. This carnal band was never profitable, as that in the 8 of Luke doth plainly testify: for if the touching of Christ’s flesh had been profitable, the multitude, whereof mention is made in that Chapter, that thrusted and pressed him, had been the better by their carnal touching. But so it is that there was never any of them the better by their carnal touching; therefore the carnal touching profiteth nothing. Saith not Christ himself, John 6:63. (to draw them from that sinister confidence they had in the flesh only) My flesh profiteth nothing; It is the Spirit that quickeneth? To touch him by the holy Spirit and by faith in thy soul, this touching by faith hath ever been profitable, and we have a plain example of it in the same Chapter.

Even so the poor woman that had long been diseased with a bloody issue the space of twelve years, and had wasted and consumed the greatest part of her substance in seeking remedy; she found no help by the natural and bodily Physician: at the last by virtue of the holy Spirit working faith in her heart, she understands and conceives that she is able to recover the health of her body and the health of her soul from Christ Jesus, who came to save both body and soul. And upon this persuasion which she had in her heart, that Christ could cure both body and soul, she came unto him; and as the Text saith, she pressed through the multitude to come to him: and when she was come, it is not said that she touched his flesh with her hand (in case the Papists would ascribe the virtue which came out of him to her carnal touching:) but it is said, that she touched only the hem of his garment with her hand; and with faith, which is the hand of the soul, she touched her Savior God and man. And to let you understand that she touched him by faith, he saith to her at the last, go thy way, thy faith hath saved thee.

She touched him not so soon by faith, but incontinent there came a power out of him: which power and virtue she felt by the effect of it in her soul; and our Savior felt it when it went from him. The effect whereby she felt it, was the health of her soul: and the effect whereby he felt it, was the going from him. And so soon as he felt it go from him, he saith, who is it that hath touched me? Peter (who was ever most sudden) answereth and saith, thou art thronged and thrusted by the multitude, & yet thou askest who hath touched thee. Our Savior answers again, it is not that touching that I speak of; it is another kind of touching. There is one hath touched me who hath drawn a virtue and power out of me: the multitude taketh no virtue from me. The poor woman thinking she had done amiss, and perceiving she could not be hid, came trembling and said; I have done it. He answered her at the last and said, depart in peace; thy faith hath saved thee: Thy faith hath drawn out a virtue and power from me, that hath made both thy soul and thy body whole. So that this touching of Christ hath ever been profitable; is & shall be profitable: like as the touching of Christ with the corporal hand hath never been, is not, nor ever shall be profitable. And why? Christ is not appointed to be a carnal head, to be set upon the necks of our bodies, that he may do the office of a carnal head thereunto, to furnish natural motions and senses to our bodies. No, the Scriptures call not Christ a natural head, but the Scriptures call him a spiritual head, to be set upon the neck of our souls: that is, to be conjoined with our souls; that out of him into our souls may distill holy motions, heavenly senses; and that there may flow out of him to us, a spiritual and heavenly life.

Then the Scriptures call him a spiritual head, as they call us a spiritual body: and as the life which we get from him is spiritual, so all our conjunction with him is spiritual. And in respect he worketh that same operation in my soul, which the carnal head doth in my body, therefore he is called a spiritual head: therefore he is called the head of his Church, because he furnisheth her with spiritual motion and senses, which is the life of the Church. So to be short, there is nothing in this conjunction carnal; there is nothing gross in it; there is nothing that may be compassed by our natural judgment and understanding. And therefore whosoever would attain to any small in-sight of this spiritual conjunction between Christ and us, of necessity he must humble himself & earnestly pray for the Spirit; otherwise it is not possible to get any understanding, no not the least apprehension how the flesh of Christ and we are conjoined, except we have some light given us by the Spirit; that is, except our hearts be wakened by the mighty working of the Spirit of Christ, this shall remain as a dead & closed letter unto us. So ye are to crave that the Lord in his mercy would waken you, illuminate your understandings, and make you to have a spiritual light to discern of these spiritual things. Next, ye must study and be careful to remove all vain cogitations & earthly fantasies: when ye come to hear so high a matter, ye must cast off all filthy thoughts, ill motions and care of the world; and ye must shake off all things that clog your hearts. Thirdly, ye must come with a purpose to hear the word, to give diligent ear to the word, & with a sanctified heart to receive it; with a purpose to grow and increase in holiness, as well in body as in soul all the days of your life. And coming with this purpose, no question, the holy Spirit shall reveal those things to you which ye want. And though this word pass and bring no commodity for the present, yet the holy Spirit hereafter shall reveal to thee the truth of that which thou hast now heard. This then is the end of all; Be present in your hearts and minds, and let your souls be emptied of all the cares of the world, that they may receive that comfort which is offered in the hearing of the word.

Now I come to the defining of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. I call this Sacrament, A holy Seal, annexed to the covenant of grace and mercy in Christ. A seal to be ministered publicly, always according to the holy institution of Christ Jesus: that by the lawful ministry thereof, the Sacramental union between the signs and the thing signified, may stand: and this union standing, Christ Jesus, who is the thing signified, is as truly delivered to the increase of our spiritual nourishment, as the signs are given and delivered to the body, for our temporal nourishment.

Now let us examine the words and parts of this definition. First of all, I call this Sacrament a Seal; because this Sacrament serveth to the same use to our souls, that a common seal doth to a common Evidence. As the seal which is annexed to the Evidence, confirms & seals up the truth contained in the Evidence: so this Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, confirmeth and sealeth up the truth of mercy and grace, contained in the covenant of mercy and grace: for this respect it is called a seal.

It is called a holy Seal. Why? Because it is taken from profane use, whereunto that bread served before; and that bread is applied to a holy use. There is a power given to that bread, to signify the precious body of Christ Jesus, to represent the nourishing and feeding of our souls. And in respect it serveth now in the Sacrament to so holy a use, therefore I call it a holy seal. This is not my word; it is the Apostles, Romans 4:11. where he giveth the Sacrament the same name and calleth it a seal. And further, if the wisdom of Christ in his Apostle had been followed, and if men had not invented new names of their own for this Sacrament, but had contented & satisfied themselves with the names which God hath given by his Apostle, & that Christ himself hath given to this Sacrament; I am assured, none of these controversies and debates (which never will cease) had fallen out: but where men will go about to be wiser then God, and go beyond God in devising names which he never gave, upon men’s own invention such debates have fallen out. A lesson by the way, that no flesh presume to be wiser then God, but let them stoop & keep the names which God hath given to this Sacrament.

Thirdly, I say, annexed to the Covenant; annexed and hung to the Charter: because it cannot be called a seal properly except it be hung to an Evidence. What it is by nature the same it remaineth, and no more, if it be not annexed to some Evidence: it is only the hanging of it to the Evidence that maketh men account it a seal; not being esteemed except it be hanged to the Evidence. Even so it is here; if this Sacrament be not ministered and joined to the preached word, to the preaching of the covenant of mercy and grace, it cannot be a seal; but what it is by nature, it is no more. As by nature it is but a common piece of bread; so it is no more if it be not annexed to the preaching of the word, and ministered therewith as Christ hath commanded. Therefore I say, the seal must be annexed and hanged to the Evidence, to the preaching of the word, for the confirming of the Evidence; otherwise it is not a seal. But it is not so with the Evidence which is the word of God: for ye know any Evidence will make faith though it want a seal; and it will serve to make a right, if it be subscribed without a seal: but the seal without the Evidence availeth nothing. Even so it is with the word of God: though the Sacraments be not annexed to the word, yet the word will serve the turn: it serveth us to get Christ, it serveth to engender and beget faith in us, and maketh us to grow up in faith. But the seal without the word can serve us to no holy use: therefore I say, the seal must be annexed to the word preached, to the covenant of mercy and grace.

Now it followeth in the definition, that this seal must be ministered publicly. Wherefore say I publicly? To exclude all private administration of this Sacrament. For if this Sacrament be administered to any privately, it is not a Sacrament. Why? Because the Apostle calleth this Sacrament a Communion: therefore if ye administer it privately, ye lose the Sacrament. For this Sacrament is a Communion of the body and blood of Christ: therefore of necessity it must be by way of communication; and so the action must be publicly ministered.

Secondly, this Sacrament must be publicly ministered, because Christ Jesus who is the thing signified in this Sacrament, is no such thing as pertaineth to one man only: if this were so, he might be privately given and ministered. But seeing Christ which is the thing signified in the Sacrament, is a common thing belonging to every faithful man and woman, therefore he ought to be commonly given to all, in a common action, in a society, & congregation of the faithful.

Thirdly, this Sacrament is a Thanksgiving to God the Father for his benefits. Now it appertaineth not to one or two, to thank God only; but as we are all partakers of his temporal and spiritual benefits, so we ought all of us publicly to give him thanks for the same. Therefore I say, in the definition, this seal ought to be publicly, and not privately ministered; as the Papists do in their private Masses. This Seal must be publicly ministered according to Christ his institution. Wherefore say I Christ his institution, more then man’s institution or Angels institution? Why keep I to Christ his institution? Because man hath not power to institute or make a Sacrament: because an Angel hath not power to make or institute a Sacrament. For none hath power to make or institute a Sacrament, but he yt hath power to give Christ, who is the thing signified in the Sacrament. But so it is that none hath power to give Christ but either the Father or himself: therefore none hath power to make or institute a Sacrament, but either the Father or the Son: only God must make a Sacrament. Secondly, this Sacrament is a part of God’s service and worship: but so it is that none hath power to appoint any part of his service, or prescribe any part of his worship, but only God himself: therefore none can make a Sacrament but God himself. There is no Prince will be contented to be served after another man’s fantasy: but he will prescribe his service according unto his own pleasure: how much more is it meet that God should appoint his own service & worship? Therefore there is neither man nor Angel, hath power to institute any part of the service of God. The Sacraments are a part of his service: therefore there is no Angel nor man hath power to institute a Sacrament. The greatest style that any man can have in the ministry of the word and Sacraments, is that style which the Apostle gives them, 1. Cor. 4.1. There we are called Stewards and Dispensers of the graces of God, Ministers of those mysteries and holy things. It followeth then, that we are not Authors, Creators and makers of them, but only Ministers and Dispensers of the Sacraments. So it is evident, that no man nor creature hath power to make a Sacrament. Then it must be according to the institution of Christ, his institution must be kept: look what he said, what he did, what he commanded thee to do; all that must be said, done and obeyed. If thou leavest one jot of that undone which he commanded thee to do, thou pervertest the institution: for there is nothing left in register of that institution but it is essential. So in the celebration of Christ’s institution we must take heed to whatsoever he said, did or commanded to be done: Thou must first say whatsoever he said, and then do whatsoever he did. For the Ministry of the Sacrament must follow after the word. First thou must say that which Christ commanded thee to say, and thou must teach that which he commanded thee to teach: and then minister the Sacrament. Then to keep this institution we must begin at the saying, and say whatsoever Christ commanded us; then after, faithfully to do all that which he commanded to be done. Then I call the word, the whole institution of Christ Jesus, preached and proclaimed, denounced distinctly, clearly and sensibly to the people in such sort, that if we leave any kind of circumstance or ceremony of this institution undone, we pervert the whole action.

It is agreed upon and condescended unto between us who celebrate this institution, and all the sects in the world who have separated themselves from this institution, that two things are necessary, and must concur in the nature and constitution of a Sacrament. To wit, there must be a word, and there must be an element concurring. There is not a sect that granteth not this, That the word must concur with the element, before there can be a Sacrament. Though they easily admit this general, wherein we agree well with them, yet when it cometh to the special, and that we enter into particular in the handling and treating of the word; how well soever we agree in the general, yet in the particular we are far asunder. For when we come to dispute and reason on these particulars; First, what we mean by the word: Secondly, how this word ought to be entreated: Thirdly, what virtue this word hath: Fourthly, how far the virtue of this word doth extend itself: And last of all, to whom the word ought to be directed and pronounced: In all these particulars we are as far asunder as ever we seemed to agree in the general.

I leave to meddle with any other sect, but will deal with the Papists only, because we have most to do with them: And first of all we are to understand what we mean by the word, and what they mean by it. We by the word (as I have said) understand the whole institution of Christ Jesus, whatsoever he said, or did, or commanded to be done, without adding or diminishing, or alteration of the meaning or sense of the word: This we mean by the word in the Sacrament.

Now what understand the Papists by the word? They preach not the institution of Christ, nor take the whole institution as he left it. But in place thereof, they select and choose out of his institution four or five words, and they make the whole virtue of the institution to consist in the four or five words. And it were nothing if they would content themselves with these words, because they are the words of the institution. But they add to the words, they take from the words, and alter the meaning of the same words at their pleasure. That ye may know this; In their Mass which they call the Lord’s Supper, I will let you see the substance of it: I will divide their Mass into substantial and accidental things. To the substance of the Mass there are three things required. There must of necessity be a Priest, that is to say, such a one as takes upon him the office of our Mediator Christ Jesus, to intercede between God and man. Secondly, to the substance of the Mass is required, that the Priest offer the body and blood of Christ. We come here to receive the same things: There the Priest offers them to God the Father. Thirdly, by this work (say they) they obtain all good things: by this work wrought they obtain remission of sins as well to the dead as to the quick; but in special they obtain remission of sins to the Priest who is the distributer, & to him to whom the Priest applieth that sacrifice: And as for the rest of the Church who are absent, they obtain this remission of their sins by this work generally. These three things are necessary to the substance of the Mass. As for the accidents that must concur to the making of a Mass, they are of two sorts: Some of them are always necessary, without the which that action cannot be: again, some are not necessary, and the action may be without them, but not without a deadly sin. These things that are necessary, concern partly the Priest, and partly the action itself. The accidents that are necessary to the Priest are of two sorts: One sort are such, as without the which he cannot be a Priest; The other sort such, without the which he cannot be free from deadly sin. The things without the which he cannot be a Priest, are these: Except he have a power given of his Bishop to consecrate, which power is justified by the unction and shaving of his crown: Except again, he have power to speak, and that the roof of his mouth be whole that he may speak, he cannot be a Priest. These two are always necessary, and concur to the person. Other things again are not so necessary; as that the Priest must be free from suspension, from cursing, deadly sin, and all Ecclesiastical pain and censures. These things are necessary to the person. There are again two things necessary to the action: One sort without the which the action cannot be; without the Lord’s prayer it cannot be, without the five words of the institution it cannot be. Other things again are not so necessary; as the consecration of the place where the Mass is said, the Altar stone, the blessing of the Chalice, the water, the singing, he that should help to say Mass, and the rest. So they and we in no sort agree concerning the word what is meant by it. The second point is, how this word ought to be entreated, wherein we are as far asunder: we say, the word taken as hath been said, for the whole institution, ought to be entreated after this manner. First, there ought to be a lawful Pastor, who hath his calling of God to deliver it. And this Pastor ought to deliver the word lawfully; what is that? he ought to preach it, to proclaim it publicly, with a plain speech to denounce it: he ought to open up and declare all the parts of it, what is the people’s part, & what is his own part, how he ought to deliver and distribute that Bread and that Wine, how the people ought to receive at his hands that Bread and that Wine, to inform their faith how they ought to receive Christ’s body and blood signified by that Bread and Wine: As also he ought to teach them how they should come with reverence unto that Table, and communicate with the precious body and blood of Christ. This he ought to do in a familiar language, that the people may understand him, that they may hear him, that they may perceive and lay up in their hearts the things that he speaketh. For what availeth it you to hear a thing whispered and not spoken out? or if it be spoken out, what availeth it you to hear it if ye understand it not? For except ye hear Christ in a familiar and plain language, ye cannot understand: and except ye understand, it is impossible for you to believe: and without belief there is no application of Christ: and except ye believe and apply Christ to yourselves, your coming to the Sacrament is in vain. So of necessity if this Sacrament be lawfully handled, the Pastor must preach the institution of Christ that it may be heard, and in a familiar language that it may be understood, in such sort that the faithful people may be informed how to receive, and the Minister may know his part, how to deliver and distribute. This I say, should be the right handling of the holy institution of this Sacrament.

Now what do they? In place of a Minister, Pastor or Bishop (call him as you please) who is lawfully called of God, they substitute a priest, surrogate a hireling, who hath no calling or office now in ye Church of God. For the office of a priest as they use their priesthood, is no other thing but the office of Christ Jesus, the office of the Mediator betwixt God & us: for they make their priests daily to offer up Christ Jesus, to the Father. Now this is the Mediator Christ his office, and he did it once for all, once forever, saith the Apostle: so that they have no entrance to do this over again: and in respect that their priests do this again which Christ hath done already, they do it without command, they have no warrant in the word of God. And if they had warrant for their calling in the word of God, yet they handle the Sacrament amiss: for whereas they should speak forth clearly, they whisper and conjure the elements by a certain kind of whispering. Whereas they should speak it in a known language that the people may understand, they speak in an unknown language: and though they spake it in a known and familiar tongue, yet in that they whisper it, the people cannot be the better. And what shall I say? Seeing they thus handle the word though it be the very institution itself, yet they so spoil it in the handling that it is not a holy Sacrament. Then we differ as much in the second point, how that word ought to be handled and entreated.

Now the third point is what virtue this word hath, how far the virtue of this word extendeth itself: In this point we grant and acknowledge that the word hath a virtue: & the word taken as hath been said, worketh somewhat even toward the same elements of bread and wine; for we acknowledge that those element by the virtue of this word are changed, not in their substance and natural properties: but we grant that the elements are changed, in a quality which they had not before; in such sort that these elements are taken from the common use whereunto they served before, and by the institution of Christ they are applied unto another holy use. Mark how far the holy use differs from the common use; there is as great difference betwixt the elements this day in the action, and the thing that they were yesterday. For I grant that the elements are changed; and yet this change proceedeth not of the nature of the elements, from an enclosed virtue supposed to be in the words, nor from the whispering of the words, but it proceeds from the will of Christ, from the ordinance and appointment of Christ, set down in his own institution: for that thing is holy, which God calleth holy; and that thing is profane, which God calleth profane. To let you understand how these signs are made holy, it is necessary that these two things be considered. First what he is that makes them holy, whether Gods Angel, or man. Secondly, whosoever he be that maketh them holy, by what means and way he maketh them holy. And by the consideration of these two, we shall come to the consideration and right viewing of the sanctification of the Elements. For the First, we say that God is only he that may make a thing which was common to be holy. So we say, that God by his will and ordinance declared and set down in his word, hath made the things that were common, by his appointment to be holy. As for the way and means whereby they are made holy, it is the word of God, the institution of Christ the will of Christ, declared in his institution, that maketh them holy. For the preaching and opening of the word & institution of Christ, lets us see that God hath made these things holy; and not only that he hath made them holy, but letteth us see a holy manner how they should be used, in what place, at what time, with what heart, and to what end. So it is the will Christ, declared in his institution, whereby the things that were common before are now made holy. There are two other things also which make the same elements holy: and these two are used in this institution. There is prayer and thanksgiving, which make the creatures of God holy to our use: whereas otherwise if we receive the good creatures of God, like dogs, and thank him not for them, it is a sure token that they were never sanctified to our use. By prayer we obtain grace and strength from God to use the creatures, and this whole action, holily and lawfully as it should be. And therefore not only in this holy action should we begin with God & with invocation of his name, but in all actions in the world we begin in the name of God. So it is the will of God that prayer, and thanksgiving conjoined with the elements, do make them holy. All these three contained in the action of the Lord’s Supper, make the Seals holy: For beside the will of God declared in the institution, in the Lord’s Supper we use invocation; and in this invocation we use thanksgiving. The elements are not made holy by the word of God only, but by the use of prayer and thanksgiving, which three are the only means whereby these things are sanctified.

Now to express and lay forth the sanctification of the Elements: The Evangelists and the Apostle Paul use indifferently the word, to bless and to give thanks, and commonly they put the one for the other: For ye may see that Mark and Paul use the word Bless: Matthew and Luke, use the word to give thanks, and all in one signification: And Mark himself in the 14. of his Gospel, 22. verse, speaking of the same action of the Lord’s Supper, useth the word to Bless, and in the 23. verse he useth the word to Give thanks, and both in one signification to let you see, that the Apostle, Christ himself, and the Evangelists, use the word to Bless, and to Give thanks indifferently, to signify the sanctification and consecration of the elements. Except ye take the one for the other, it will be hard to gather any good meaning out of the Apostles words: for I remember the Apostle 1. Corinthians 10.16. saith: The cup of blessing which we bless; what is that? I take the word to signify, as I have said, which we bless, that is, which we sanctify and prepare by blessing. So to bless and to give thanks in the Lord’s Supper, signify no other thing but to sanctify: otherwise if ye take the word in another signification ye shall fall into an error; and why? God is said to bless, and man is said to bless: God is said to bless when he giveth good things unto his creatures, for God’s blessing is ever effectual; and therefore he is said to bless when he giveth good thing. Man again is said to bless either privately or publicly, when he craveth blessing at the hands of God for any man; when he blesseth in the name and at the commandment of God, any person or people. Now if ye ascribe blessing in any of these two significations to the cup, it is amiss: for we use neither to crave a blessing to insensible elements; nor yet to bless them in the name of God: and God useth to give good things to the sons of men, and not to insensible creatures. Therefore we must needs use the word Bless, in the third signification, The cup of blessing which we bless, that is, which we sanctify and prepare by blessing. Thus far we understand, for the sanctification of the elements.

Now let us see how they sanctify the elements, and what is the form of their consecration; so far as I understand of it, it consisteth in these five words: Hoc est enim corpus meum. It standeth in these five words, and in the whispering of them; for if you whisper them not, ye lose the fashion of incantation: for the thing which we call sanctifying, they call whispering: and the whispering of those five words, they call the consecration of the elements. And when the words are after this manner whispered, they presuppose such a secret and monstrous virtue to be enclosed in the syllables, that the virtue and power which floweth from the words, is able to chase away wholly the substance of the bread, so that the very bread and substance of it is altogether destroyed by this power. Secondly, that this power which floweth from these words, is able to fetch and pull down another substance, to wit, the flesh and blood of Christ Jesus that sitteth at the right hand of his Father, and is able to put it within the compass of that bread. This is a strange and a great virtue, that not only will overthrow that substance, but put it within the compass of that bread. The same five words whispered in this manner have such a monstrous operation, say they, that they are able both to chase away the one substance, to pull down another, and to put it within the compass of that bread. We altogether deny that there is such a virtue in these words: for as I have said before, we deny not that the word hath a virtue, but deny that there is such a virtue enclosed in the words: we deny the quality of the virtue, or that it floweth from such a fountain. For we grant that the word hath a virtue; there is never a word that God speaketh here, but it hath a virtue joined with it: but we deny that this virtue is enclosed in the syllables, in the whispering or pronouncing of the words: for if there were such a virtue and power enclosed in the syllables, by the same reason it should follow, that there were a virtue in the figure & shape of the letters that make up the words. Now there is no man will think that there is any virtue in the figure or shape of the letters: and there is as little virtue in the syllables or pronouncing of the words themselves. So we deny that there is any virtue enclosed in the syllables or resident in the word. But we say that there is a power conjoined with the word, and this power is not resident in the word, but is resident in the eternal word, in the essential word whereof John the Evangelist maketh mention, Chap. 1. The word which was from the beginning, that is, the Son of God Christ Jesus. We say, there is not a dram weight of this virtue & power resident in any creature yt ever God created, but it is only resident in Christ Jesus: And therefore there floweth no virtue from the syllables, nor from the words that are spoken, but from Christ and his Spirit, who giveth the virtue to those words. So we differ in this; we say, that there is not any virtue resident in the syllables, we say that the syllables and pronouncing of the syllables work nothing: but we say that the virtue is resident in the person of the Son of God, and he worketh by his own word.

Now we say that there cannot be such a monstrous change, as to say the whispering of so many words should change the own substance of the bread, pull down the substance of the body of Christ, and put his body in so narrow a compass, we say that cannot be. And this I shall prove by these three rules; namely, By the verity of the flesh of Christ Jesus; By the articles of our belief; And by the true end of the institution of this Sacrament. And so we shall see by God’s grace the infinite absurdities that follow upon their opinion. The first principle that I lay is this; Seeing yt Christ Jesus the Son of God in the time appointed, took true flesh of the womb of the Virgin, & united himself with our nature in one personal union; to ye end that our nature which fell altogether from integrity in the first Adam, might recover the same in the second Adam: yea not only ye same, but so much the greater as our second Adam excelleth the first in all degrees. And in respect he took on him a body like unto ours in all things (sin excepted,) of necessity it must follow, that the definition of a true body, and the inseparable properties thereof must be competent to him. But these are the inseparable properties; namely, to be in one certain place, to be finite, circumscribed, visible, and palpable: for all these concur (quarto modo, as the Logicians say) to a body; so that they cannot be separate from the subject without the distraction thereof. Then I reason on this manner; A true human body is in a certain place; Christ Jesus body is a true human body: therefore it is in a certain place. I call a place a certain condition of an instrumental body, whereby it cometh to pass that where-ever the body be, of necessity it is limited within that place; and while it is there, it cannot be elsewhere.

If you would have the probation of my Proposition from the Doctors, read Augustine to Dardanus, speaking of this same body of Christ. Take away a certain room from the bodies, and they shall be in no place; and if they be in no place, they are not. The same Augustine writing upon John, in his 30. Treatise saith, the body in the which the Lord did arise, of necessity must be in a place; but his divine efficacy and nature is diffused everywhere. And in his third Epistle he saith, how much soever the body be, or how little soever the body be, it behooveth to occupy the bounds of a place. And besides these, the history of the Acts proveth most evidently Christ his body to be in a certain place: as Acts 3:21. the words are these; Whom the heavens must contain, until the time that all things be restored, which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy Prophets. Though I need not to insist in the probation of these things, yet I proceed. Secondly then I reason after this manner; A human body is finite and circumscribed; but the body of Christ is a human body. What warrant from the Doctors have I for this? I leave many purposely, and will allege only Augustine, who writing to Dardanus, believe (saith he) Christ to be everywhere in that he is God; but only to be in heaven, according to the nature of a true body. And in his 146. Epistle, I believe, saith he, the body of Christ to be so in heaven as it was on the earth, when he went up to heaven. But it was circumscribed in a certain place on the earth. Ergo, it is so in the heaven. And consequently, it cannot be in the Mass-bread and in heaven both at one time. The last reason is this: A human body is visible and palpable: but Christ hath a human body, and he is corporally present, as they say: therefore Christ his body is visible and palpable.

I prove my Proposition by Christ his own words taken out of Luke 24:39. In the which place, to persuade the Apostles of the verity of his body, and to prove evidently that it was not fantastical, he useth the argument taken from these two qualities, and he commandeth his Apostles to feel and see; giving them thereby to understand, that as these two senses are the most certain of all the rest, so are they most able to discern, whether he was a body or a Spirit. As if he would have said, If I be visible and palpable, ye may be out of doubt that I have a true body. For as the Poet saith, which Tertullian citeth also to this same purpose; Tangere enim, & tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res. By these arguments it may be evidently seen, how this Transubstantiation may no way stand with the verity of the body of Christ Jesus. And as it fights with the flesh of Christ Jesus, so it repugnes directly the articles of our faith. For in our Belief we profess, that Christ ascended out of this earth to the heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father, where he governs and directs all things in heaven and earth; from the which place, he is to come at the last day to judge the world. This article teacheth us, that he hath changed his dwelling which he had amongst us on earth, and is ascended into the heavens, where he sits at the right hand of his Father, and shall remain there (according to the testimony of Peter, which I cited out of the Acts 3:21.) until the last day. If he sit at his Fathers right hand, and be to remain in heaven until the last day, then is he not corporally in the bread. But the article of our belief saith, that he sitteth at the right hand of his Father: and Peter saith in that place, that the heavens must contain him until the last day. Therefore this Transubstantiation is directly against the articles of our Belief, and the manifest place of the Scripture.

Thirdly, it is opposite unto the end wherefore this Sacrament was instituted, and this is most evident: for the end of the Sacrament is spiritual, as the effect that floweth thereof is spiritual, and the instrument whereby this spiritual food is applied to us, is also spiritual. But from a natural and corporal presence, a spiritual effect can never flow: therefore the corporal and natural presence of the body and blood of Christ Jesus repugnes directly the end of this Sacrament: for the corporal presence must have a corporal eating: of this eating followeth a digestion in the stomach: and the thing that is digested in the stomach is never able to feed my soul to life eternal. So this corporal presence must ever tend to a corporal end; which is directly contrary unto the end wherefor the Sacrament was instituted.

Further, if the bread were transubstantiate, it should become the thing signified; if it become the thing signified, this Sacrament should want a sign, and so it should not be a Sacrament: for every Sacrament, as ye have head, is a sign. Now to say that the accidents of true bread, as the color and the roundness of it, may serve as signs, that is more then folly: for between the sign and the thing signified, there must be a conformity: but there is no conformity between the accidents, and the body and blood of Christ Jesus. For if that were so, the accidents behooved to nourish us corporally; as the body and blood of Christ Ie- pointed to nourish us spiritually.

Again, if the bread become the body & blood of Christ Jesus, it should follow that he had a body without blood; for he hath instituted another sign besides to represent his blood. Also if there had been such a wonderful thing as they speak of, in this Sacrament, there would have been plain mention made thereof in the Scripture: for God himself never works a notable work but he declares it either openly or more secretly in the Scripture, that thereby he may be glorified in his wonderful works. As ye may read in the Evangelist John 2:8. where the water was changed into wine; Gene. 2.22. where the rib of Adam, was changed into Heva: Exodus 7:10. where Aaron’s rod was turned into a Serpent: there ye see that changing is manifestly expressed. Therefore I say, if there had been such a monstrous change in these elements of the Supper as they affirm, the Scripture would not have concealed it, but expressed it: but in respect there is no mention made of this change in the Scriptures, therefore there is no such change in this action. Further if there were such a change, as they say, either it is before these words of consecration be spoken, or follows after the same words be spoken. If the change be before the words of the consecration be spoken, the consecration is superfluous, and their Proposition is false: if the change be after the words be spoken, this bread is my body, their Proposition is false also; because the word bread is spoken, before the last syllable of their five words is pronounced. These, and infinite more absurdities follow of this doctrine. And yet they obstinately persevere, and urge us with the letter, affirming that the words of Christ are so plain that they admit no figure. They would have spoken more advisedly if they had sought counsel of Augustine, to have discerned between a figurative speech, and a proper speech: for he in his third book and 16. chapter of Christian doctrine, speaks after this sort; If the speech, saith he, seem to command a wickedness or mischief, or to forbid any happiness or any welfare, it is not proper, it is then figurative. And he adds for an example, a place out of John 6:53. Except, saith our Savior, ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whereunto Augustine addeth: This speech saith he, seemeth to command a mischief therefore it is a figurative speech, whereby we are commanded to communicate with the sufferings of Christ Jesus, and with gladness to keep in perpetual memory, that the flesh of the Lord was crucified and wounded for us. For otherwise it were more horrible (as the same Augustine maketh mention in the second book against the Adversaries of the law) to eat the flesh of Christ Jesus really, then to murder him; and more horrible to drink his blood, then to shed his blood. Yet notwithstanding they are not ashamed still to hold & maintain, that those words ought to be taken properly. So that it appeareth, that of very malice for contradiction sake, to the end only that they may withstand the truth, they will not acknowledge this to be a sacramental speech. For they are compelled will they, nil they, in other speeches of the like sort to acknowledge a figure; as Genes. 17.10. Circumcision is called the covenant; and Exodus 12:11. the Lamb is called the Passover; and Math. 20.22. the Cup is called his Blood; and Luke 22:20. the Cup is called the New Testament; and 1. Cor. 10.4. the Rock is called Christ. All these speeches are sacramental, and receive a kind of interpretation: yet they maliciously press to deny us this in these words (Hoc est corpus meum,) which they are compelled to grant in the rest, as especially where Paul calleth the rock Christ.

Now when they are driven out of this Fortress they fly as unhappily to the second: namely, That God by his omnipotency may make the body of Christ to be in heaven, and in the bread both at one time. Ergo, say they, it is so. If I denied their consequent, they would be much troubled to prove it. But the question standeth not here, whether God may do it or not: but the question is, Whether God will it or not; or may will it or not. And we say reverently, that his Majesty may not will it: for though it be true that he may many things which he will not, yet it is as true, that there are many things which he may not will; of the which sort this is: and these are reduced to two sorts.

First, he may not will those things which are contrary to his nature: as to be changeable, as to decay, & such others: for if he might will these things, they should not be arguments of any puissance or of any other power, but rather certain arguments of his impotency and infirmity. And therefore though he may not will these things, he ceaseth not to be omnipotent; but so much the rather his constant and invincible power is known.

Secondly, God may not will some things by reason of a presupposed condition: as such things, whereof he hath concluded the contrary before; of the which sort is this which is now controverted. For seeing that God hath concluded, that a human body should consist of instrumental parts, and therefore to be comprehended and circumscribed within one, and the own proper place: and also seeing he hath appointed Christ Jesus to have the like body, and that not for a time, but eternally: in respect of this determined will (I say) God may not will the contrary now, either to abolish this body which he hath appointed to be eternal, or yet to make it at one time, in respect of one thing, a body and not a body, quantified and not quantified, finite and infinite, local and not local: for to will these things which are plain contrary in themselves he may not, no more than it is possible for him to will a lie. So it may be seen of all men, that we preserve the omnipotency of God; and with reverence from our hearts, acknowledge him only to be only omnipotent: and we desire all men to esteem them as Calumniators, who abuse the ears of the simple ones to persuade them the contrary of us.

They are not content with this: but they say, That God may will a contradiction, and make both the parts to be true at one time. And to prove this, they would bring in the miracles which God works: as if they would say, every miracle includes a contradiction. As for example; God made a Virgin to bear a Son, they think this work brings with it a contradiction. To bear a Son, say they, is the one part of the contradiction; and to be a Virgin, is the other part of the contradiction. This work is a miracle, but it implieth no contradiction: for concerning the holy Virgins conception, therein is no contradiction. There was a miracle indeed, that a virgin should bear a Son, contrary to the course of nature: for to be a virgins, & yet to have a child, are not contradictory if she have conceived & brought forth by miracle, as did the blessed Virgin: But to be a virgins and not a virgins at one time, this is the contradiction. So Christ his body to be visible and invisible, local & not local, at one time, is in every respect the like contradiction; and therefore impossible to be true. Their other example, of Christ his entering in, the doors being closed and shut, what appearance of contradiction hath it? Can they prove that he entered through the doors? And if he did, then was there an alteration of qualities and that by miracle, either in Christ his body, or in the doors; but no contradiction in nature, unless you know not what a contradiction is. Their third and last example of the fire in Nebuchadnezzars Oven, which consumed the ministers, but hurt not them that were in the midst of it, appears to be of no weight, by that which hath already been answered. They imagine, as appeareth, that in every miracle a contradiction is implied: which is absurd. If they can prove that this fire was both hot and cold, then they say something to the purpose: but that it burns up some and hurts not others, is no contradiction; because by miracle the force thereof was repressed. So this second ground is sure; God may not will that thing which implieth a contradiction. But so it is that the real presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament implieth a contradiction; for it maketh the body of Christ visible and invisible, compassed and not compassed at one time: therefore God may not will such a thing. When they are driven from this, they make their last refuge a peremptory defense in their own opinion: for they say, Christ his body is freed from physical rules: for Theology is not subject to physical rules. It is a very ill gathered consequence, to say, that we subject Theology to Physic, because that we (first, according to Theology, which is the law of God; and next, according to Physic, which is the law of Nature) defend the natural properties of the true and natural body of Christ Jesus. Then I grant this, that Theology is not subject unto Physic; what of this? Ergo, Christ his body is freed from physical rules. How followeth that I pray you? By what law may ye free or can ye free the body of Christ? By the law of Nature ye cannot; for he was made of the seed of David, and took on him true flesh of the womb of the Virgin: And far less by the law of God, which is Theology: for ye know that Christ was appointed from all eternity, to take on him our nature and to become true man.

Indeed it is true, that the law of God cannot be subject to the law of nature; for the law of Nature floweth from the law of God as out of the own spring: but it is as true, that if ye take Christ his body from the law of Nature, ye shall free it also from the law of God. For I affirm that the Scripture so consents with the law of Nature, that if ye deny the one, ye shall deny the other; and if ye admit the one, ye shall admit also the other. Therefore if they look well about them, they shall find the beam to be in their own eye: for they pervert both the law of God and the law of Nature, by a new invented natural knowledge of their own. For whatsoever he be that attributes to one and the self-same body, natural and unnatural properties, which directly fight against themselves; I say, that man perverteth both true Theology and Nature. But they to one and the self-same body of Christ Jesus, attribute natural and unnatural properties: therefore it is they that pervert both the use of true Theology, and the order set down and established in Nature. Would you know the reason of my Proposition? I say, it behooveth as well in Theology as in Nature, of necessity one of the contrary enunciations to be false. But once to make an end with them, I will answer their last refuge. Thus they reason; A glorified body is not subject to natural rules: but Christ his body is glorified; therefore it is not subject to natural rules. First of all, before we answer directly, we must consider wherein standeth the glorification of a body, and then the answer will be easy. The Apostle Paul, 1. Cor. 15.42. speaketh after this manner; So also, saith he, is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, & is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor, and is raised in glory: It is sown in weakness, and is raised in power. And a little after: This corruption must put on incorruption, and this mortality must put on immortality. By this clear Antithesis, Paul plainly describeth the glorification of a body; for he opposeth these two, the unglorified and the glorified body: And to the unglorified body he ascribeth corruption, ignominy, infirmity, carnality, and mortality: To the glorified body he attributes incorruption, glory, power, spirituality and immortality. Of this opposition we may gather easily, what the resurrection and glorification bringeth to the body. In a word, by them we see that the body is only spoiled of corruption, shame, infirmity, naturality, and mortality: and it becometh only spoiled of all the infirmities of our nature, that it may be clothed with a more glorious apparel: as with incorruption, power, glory, spirituality, and immortality. We see then, that this glorification imports a change indeed; but I believe no man will be so mad, as to think this change to be made in the substance: for if that were so, the old substance behooved to decay, and a new should arise: but we hear no such thing in this description. And as little is the change made in the quantity: for we find no word either of augmentation or diminution of any substance, which behooved to be, if it were in the quantity. The most that we can perceive, this mutation consisteth in the qualities, by the which the body casteth off the old coat of infirmity, and is clothed a new with the coat of glory: for Christ after he did arise, he both went and came, was seen and touched. Of the things before deduced, it clearly followeth, That in respect the glory of the body of Christ hath wrought nothing in his nature and substance, and consequently in his natural dimensions, neither yet in any other essential property. that therefore the glorification of his body freeth it not from the rules of Nature. For so long as that nature of a true body remaineth, there are no supernatural gifts whereby it may be glorified, were they never so high (so far as they may be gathered out of ye Scriptures) that may hurt either the nature or the natural property of it: For there is no gift nor quality that may hurt nature, but that gift that is against nature. But the supernatural gift is neither unnatural, neither yet against nature: therefore it cannot hurt nor impair nature. And my reason is this; Those gifts that decor and beautify nature, they cannot hurt nor impair nature: But all supernatural gifts beautify and decor nature; Therefore they cannot take away either nature, or yet the natural property.

They leave us not so: but out of this doctrine of Paul, concerning the glorification of the body, they draw an objection to press us withal. Paul granteth that a glorified body is a spiritual body, but a spiritual body is an invisible body; Therefore a glorified body is invisible: and by consequence, the body of Christ is invisible.

Though the argument be not formal: yet to be short I deny their assumption: for if there were no more but that word, body, that word might be an argument that the spiritual body is not invisible. But yet to open the matter more clearly, according to the meaning of Saint Paul in that place: Saint Paul in a word as it were, in the 44. verse of that Chapter, showeth the change that shall be in the qualities of the body by the resurrection. For he saith, that our natural bodies shall become spiritual bodies: and then in the next verse immediately following, he expoundeth these two qualities: for in the 45. verse, that is called a natural body, saith he, which is maintained and quickened by a living soul only, such as Adams was. And again, that is said to be a spiritual body, which together besides the soul is quickened with a far more excellent virtue, to wit, with the Spirit of God, which descendeth from Christ the second Adam unto us. Then according unto this ground I answer with Augustine ad Constantium: As the natural body is not a soul, but a body: even so the spiritual body is not said to be a soul, but a body. And by consequent, it is not invisible. For the further explaining of this head, I will give them only one knot to loose, & so end this point. Then I reason: If therefore Christ’s body is naturally and really in the Lord’s Supper, because that it is glorified: It followeth consequently, that when it was not glorified, it could not be really present. But it was not glorified when this supper was first instituted. Therefore it was not really present in the bread at Christ’s first Supper. If his body was not really present in the bread at the first Supper, it cannot be naturally present now. For whatsoever they use now in the administration of their Supper or of their Mass, (call it as you will) according to their own confession, they use it according to the ordinance, form, and manner that Christ Jesus himself used in his first Supper: For they say plainly in their disputation at Poyssie, and in all the rest of their works, That Christ Jesus first of all observed that form which they use in their Mass, and left it to his Apostles and to their successors, that they should do the like. And so by their own words they have entangled themselves, and crucified their Mass: what can they answer to this? They will not stand dumb I am sure: for maintenance of their religion they must say something. Thus they say, That though the body of Christ which was locally present with the rest of his disciples, was not glorified, yet the body which he exhibited in the bread was glorified. They might as well have held their peace, and say nothing. For mark the words of the text as they are written, Luke 22:19. where it is said, and he took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them saying, This is my body which is given for you: and Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 11.24. hath these words, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. This relative, which, is relative to the body which was exhibited in the bread: for according to their own confession, those words are pronounced upon the bread and directed unto it. But that same body was given and broken unto us, that is to say, crucified and broken with anguish and dolors. Then I reason after this sort: To be crucified and broken with anguish and dolors, can no ways agree and accord with a glorified body: But the body that Christ exhibited in the bread, is said of the Evangelists, to be crucified and broken for us: Ergo, that body was not glorified.

Now last of all they are not yet content, but say, Christ can make the bread his body; and therefore his body is really present. That Christ can make the bread his body, we grant: for Christ being God, can do whatsoever he will: only let them show, That Christ will make of real bread, his real flesh, and then this controversy will end. Christ indeed makes the bread his body, not really but sacramentally: For Christ hath not a body made of bread; his body was made once of the pure substance of his blessed Mother: Another body then this, or oftener made then once, hath he none: wherefore all doctrine that teacheth Christ’s body to be made of bread is impious and heretical. The Papists doctrine of real presence teacheth, that Christ’s body in the Sacrament is made of bread, by changing the bread into his body through consecration: wherefore we may boldly and truly conclude; That their doctrine of real presence is both wicked and heretical. Now to conclude this head: I beseech them, seeing that reason fails them, that they fight not against God for maintenance of a lie how old soever it be, (for the devil is old enough, and yet he could never change his nature.) But let them rather glorify God in confessing these speeches to be Sacramental.

Then what is the reason and ground wherefore the Papists pull down the substance of the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, and make the very substance to be corporally, really, and substantially in the Sacrament? The reason is this, because they cannot see by their natural judgment, nor can understand by their natural wit, the truth of this to wit, how Christ’s flesh and blood can be present in the Sacrament, except he be present to their corporal mouth and stomach. If they had the light to inform them, that Christ might be present in the Sacrament, and not to the hand, to the mouth, or stomach, they would never think of such a monstrous presence as they imagine to be there. But being destitute of the spiritual light, they follow their natural reason, and make a natural and carnal presence. So that ye have this lesson to note from hence: There is no man that hath not the spirit of God to understand this word, this is my body, but out of question he will do as the Papists do that is, he will understand it carnally: And so they misknowing the right meaning of it, it is no marvel though and we differ in this matter. For will you ask of a Papist, first if the true body of Christ be there, or if the true flesh and blood of Christ be there; he will say, it is there: will you ask him wherein? he will say in and under the accidents of the bread and wine, under the hew and roundness of the bread: will you ask him again, by what instrument it is received? He will tell you by the mouth and stomach of the body: So this is their gross understanding of the body and blood of Christ. Will you ask of the Ubiqueter, if the true body of Christ be present? he will say, it is: will you ask, if it be in, with, or under the bread? he will answer, It is in the bread, contentive, that is, the bread contains it: will you ask him to what instrument it is offered? he will answer, that the body of Christ is offered to the mouth of our body, and that the blood of Christ is offered to the mouth of our body, as the Papists do: Will you know of us how Christ Jesus his true body & blood is present? We will say, that they are spiritually present, really present, that is, present in the Lord’s Supper, and not in the bread: we will not say, that his true flesh is present to the hand, or to the mouth of our bodies; but we say it is spiritually present, that is, present unto thy spirit and faithful soul: yea, even as present inwardly unto thy soul, as the bread and wine are present unto thy body outwardly. Will you ask then, if the body and blood of Christ Jesus be present in the Lord’s Supper? We answer in a word; They are present, but not in the bread and wine, nor in the accidents, nor substance of bread and wine. And we make Christ to be present in this Sacrament, because he is present to my soul, to my spirit, & faith. Also we make him present in the Lord’s Supper, because I have him in his promise, This is my body; which promise is present to my faith: and the nature of faith is to make things that are absent in themselves, yet present. And therefore seeing he is both present by faith in his promise and present by the virtue of his holy Spirit, who can say but that he is present in this Sacrament? But yet the word would be explained, what we mean by the word, present, how a thing is said to be present, and absent. And knowing this, ye shall find all the mater easy. I say, things are said to be present, as they are perceived by any outward or inward sense, and as they are perceived by any of the senses, so are they present, and the further they be perceived the further present: and by what sense anything is perceived, to that sense it is present. As if it be outwardly perceived by an outward sense, that thing is outwardly present. As for example, if it be perceived by the outward sight of the eye, by the outward hearing of the ear, by the outward feeling of the hands or taste of the mouth, it is outwardly present. Or if anything be perceived by the inward eye, by the inward taste and feeling of the soul, this thing cannot be outwardly present, but it must be spiritually and inwardly present to the soul. So I say everything is present, as it is perceived. So that if you perceive not a thing outwardly, it is outwardly absent: and if ye perceive not a thing inwardly, it is inwardly absent. It is not distance of place that maketh a thing absent. nor propinquity of place that makes a thing present: but it is only the perceiving of anything by any of thy senses that makes a thing present; and the not perceiving that makes a thing absent: I say, though the thing it self were never so far distant, if thou perceive it by thine outward sense, it is present unto thee. As for example, my body and the Sun are as far distant in place, as the heaven is from the earth; & yet this distance stayeth not the Suns presence from me: why? because I perceive the Sun by mine eye and other senses; I feel it and perceive it by the heat, by the light, and by his brightness. So if a thing were never so far distant, if we have senses to perceive the same, it is present to us. Then the distance of place makes not a thing absent from thee, if thou hast senses to perceive it: likewise the nearness of place makes not a thing present, be it never so near, if thou hast not senses to perceive it. As for example, if the Sun shine upon thine eyes, if thou be blind it is not present to thee, because thou canst not perceive it. A sweet tune will never be present to a deaf ear, though it be sung in the ear of that man, because he hath not a sense to perceive it: and a well told tale will never be present to a fool, because he cannot understand it, nor hath no judgment to perceive it: So it is not the nearness nor distance of place that maketh anything present or absent, but only the perceiving or not perceiving of it.

Now the word being made clear, ask you how the body of Christ is present? To give our judgment in a word, as ye have heard from time to time, he is present, not to the outward senses, but to the inward senses, which is faith wrought in the soul. For this action of the Sacrament and of the Lord’s Supper, is partly corporal, and partly spiritual: I call this action partly corporal, not in respect only that the objects, that is, that bread and wine are corporal, but also in respect my mouth whereunto these things are offered, the instrument whereby, and the manner how these things are received, are all corporal and natural. Its all the same action again, partly spiritual, not only in respect of Christ Jesus who is the heavenly and spiritual thing of the Sacrament, but also in respect of my soul whereunto Christ is offered and given, in respect the instrument whereby, and the manner how he is received, are all spiritual: for I get not Christ corporally but spiritually. So in these respects I call this action partly corporal and partly spiritual.

Now confound not these two sorts of actions, the corporal and natural signs, with the spiritual thing signified thereby: again, confound not the mouth of the body with the mouth of the soul. Thirdly, confound not the outward manner of receiving by the hand of the body with the spiritual manner of receiving by the hand of the soul. And so it shall be exceeding clear to see, that each thing shall be present to the own instrument; that is, the body of Christ which is the spiritual thing signified, shall be present to the spiritual mouth and hand: and the bread and wine which are the corporal signs, are present to the corporal mouth and hand. Then how is any object present? A corporal object is corporally present: and an inward object is inwardly present. Of what nature is the thing signified? It is of a heavenly nature. Then ask you how he is present; He is spiritually and heavenly present to the soul, and the mouth of the soul, which is faith. For it were a preposterous thing to make the thing signified present to thy belly, or to the mouth or eye of thy body; for if that were so, it should not be spiritually present: because everything is present as it agreeth in it own nature. Is it a bodily thing? it is bodily present: and if it be a heavenly thing, it is spiritually present. So I think no man can doubt how the body of Christ is present: he is not carnally present, but spiritually present to my soul, and to faith in my soul. Thus far concerning the manner of his presence.

Now the last part of our difference is this: we have to consider to whom the words ought to be directed and pronounced: For we and the Papists differ in this last point; we say that the words ought to be directed and pronounced unto the people, to the faithful communicants. They on the contrary say, that the words ought not to be directed nor pronounced to the people, but to the elements, and not to be clearly pronounced, but whispered on the elements; So that if they be spoken to the people, or spoken openly, their charm availeth not. Now I say, that as this holy action is perverted by them in all the rest, so they pervert it in this point also, in speaking that to the dumb elements which they should speak to the people of God: For I shall prove it clearly by three arguments taken out of the Scriptures, that the words ought not to be spoken to the bread, but to the people of God. And first I say, the promises of mercy and grace ought to be directed and pronounced to them in whom the Lord performeth them and maketh them effectual: But so it is that the promises of mercy and grace are performed, and made effectual not in bread and wine, but in faithful men and women: Therefore these promises should be directed to faithful men and women. Now here is the promise of mercy and graces: This is my body which is broken for you: and this promise is made to no other thing but to the faithful, and so to them only it ought to be directed. Secondly, we have to consider, that this Sacrament seals up a covenant of grace and mercy. Now with whom will God make his covenant of mercy and grace? will he make a covenant with a piece of bread or any dumb element: There is no man will enter into covenant with his servant, much less will enter inter covenant with a dumb element. So in respect this Sacrament seals up a covenant, this covenant of necessity must be made with a faithful soul, and in no wise with the dumb element: and therefore these words cannot be directed to the elements. Thirdly, look to ye end wherefore this Sacrament was appointed. Is it not to lead us to Christ? Is it not to nourish my faith in Christ? Is it not to nourish me in a constant persuasion of the Lord’s mercy in Christ? Was this Sacrament appointed to make the elements God’s? No, for if ye mark God’s purpose in this institution, ye shall find that Christ hath not ordained this institution to nobilitate the elements, to favor & respect the elements which were Bread and Wine yesterday, to be God’s today. We on the contrary say plainly, that the institution of Christ respecteth not the elements to alter their nature. Indeed it is appointed to alter us, to change us, and to make us more and more spiritual, and to sanctify the elements to our use. But the special end is this, to make us holy, and more and more to grow up in a sure faith in Christ, & not to alter the elements nor to make them gods. And therefore by all these three Arguments, it is evident that the words ought nor to be directed to the elements, but to the people and faithful communicants.

Now to come to an end: There is one thing without the which we cannot profit, let us discourse never so long upon the right understanding of the Sacrament. Ye see now how all that is spoken concerning the Sacrament, is grounded and dependeth upon faith. Let a man have faith be it never so little, he shall get some hold of Christ, and some insight in the understanding of this Sacrament: but wanting faith, though a man endeavor himself to make the Sacraments never so sensible, it is not possible that he can get any hold of Christ, or any insight of him. For without faith we cannot be Christians: we can neither get a sight of God, nor feel God in Christ without faith.

Faith is the only thing that translateth our souls out of that death and damnation wherein we were conceived and borne, and planteth life in us. So the whole study and endeavor of a Christian should tend to this; To crave that the Lord in his mercy would illuminate his mind with the eye of faith, and that he would kindle in his heart a love of faith, and work in his heart a thirst and desire of the object of faith, and more and more to thirst and hunger for the food of faith that nourisheth us to life eternal.

Without this faith (how-soever the natural man understanding naturally, would flatter himself) surely there is no blessedness; but all his life is more than terrible misery. For whatsoever it be that flatters and pleaseth thee now, be it a thought or motion of the mind, or an action of the body that pleaseth thee now without faith, the same very motion, cogitation, or action, shall torment thee hereafter. So without faith it is not possible to please God; and whatsoever pleaseth not God, is done to torment thee. Therefore crave mercy for whatsoever motion, cogitation, or action, wherein thou hast offended God; or for the same God shall offend and torment thee. And to eschew the offense of God there is no means but by true faith; therefore the study of a Christian should be to grow in faith.

Now by hearing of the word thou gettest faith; and by receiving this Sacrament thou obtainest the increase of faith; and having faith, the receiving of the Sacrament shall be fruitful: but without faith thou eatest thine own condemnation. Then the whole study of a Christian is to get faith; and this faith cannot be obtained with idleness, but by earnest prayer: therefore let everyone of us fall down, and crave earnestly this faith and the increase of it, whereby we may be worthy receivers of this blessed Sacrament; and that for the righteous merits of Christ Jesus: To whom with the Father and the holy Spirit, be all honor, praise and glory, both now and ever, Amen.