them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me. Likewise also, when they had supped, he took the cup, saying: This cup is the New Luke xxii. Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." St Paul setteth forth Christ's supper thus:

19, 20.

1 Cor. xi.

1 Cor. xi. 23-25.

1 Cor. x.

"The Lord Jesus, the same night in the which he was betrayed, took bread, and gave thanks, and brake, and said: Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the same manner he took the cup, when supper was done, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do, as often as ye shall drink it, in the remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the Lord's death until he come."

Here, where St Luke saith, "which is given;" Paul saith, "which is broken." And as Luke addeth to the words of Paul spoken of the cup, "which is shed for you;" so likewise Paul addeth to the words thereof, "This do, as often: as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.' The rest that followeth in St Paul, both there and in the tenth chapter, pertaineth unto the right use of the Lord's supper.

Thus the Evangelists and St Paul have rehearsed the words and work of Christ, whereby he did institute and ordain this holy sacrament of his body and blood, to be a perpetual remembrance until his coming again of himself (I say), that is, of his body given for us, and of his blood: shed for the remission of sins.

But this remembrance, which is thus ordained, as the author thereof is Christ (both God and man), so by the almighty power of God it far passeth all kinds of remembrances that any other man is able to make, either of himself, or of any other thing: for whosoever receiveth this holy sacrament thus ordained in remembrance of Christ, he receiveth therewith either death or life. In this, I trust, we do all agree. For St Paul saith of the godly receivers in the tenth chapter of his First Epistle unto the Corinthians : "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's blood?" And also saith: "The bread which we break (and meaneth at the Lord's table), is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christ's body?"

Now the partaking of Christ's body and of his blood, unto the faithful and godly, is the partaking or fellowship of life and immortality. And again, of the bad and ungodly receivers, St Paul as plainly saith thus: "He that eateth 1 Cor. xi. of this bread and drinketh of this cup unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Oh! how necessary then is it, if we love life and would eschew death, to try and examine ourselves before we eat of this bread and drink of this cup! for else, assuredly, he that eateth and drinketh thereof unworthily eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lord's body; that is, he reverenceth not the Lord's body with the honour that is due unto him.

And that which was said, that with the receipt of the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ is received of every one, good or bad, either life or death; it is not meant, that they which are dead before God may hereby receive life; or the living before God can hereby receive death. For as none is meet to receive natural food, whereby the natural life is nourished, except he be born and live before; so no man can feed (by the receipt of the holy sacrament) of the food of eternal life, except he be regenerated and born of God before and on the other side, no man here receiveth damnation, which is not dead before.

Thus hitherto, without all doubt, God is my witness, I say, so far as I know, there is no controversy among them that be learned among the church of England, concerning the matter of this sacrament, but all do agree, whether they be new or old; and to speak plain, and as some of them do odiously call each other, whether they be Protestants, Pharisees, Papists, or Gospellers.

And as all do agree hitherto in the aforesaid doctrine, so all do detest, abhor, and condemn the wicked heresy of the Messalians, which otherwise be called Euchites, which said, that the holy sacrament can neither do good nor harm: and do also condemn those wicked Anabaptists, which put no difference between the Lord's table and the Lord's meat, and their own. And because charity would, that we should (if it be possible, and so far as we may with the safeguard of good conscience, and maintenance of the truth)

agree with all men; therefore, methinks, it is not charitably done, to burden any man (either new or old, as they call them) further, than such do declare themselves to dissent from what we are persuaded to be the truth, and pretend thereto to be controversies, whereas none such are in deed; Charity will and so to multiply the debate, the which, the more it doth increase, the further it doth depart from the unity that the true Christian should desire.

belie no

man.

And again, this is true that the truth neither needeth, nor will be maintained with lies. It is also a true common What it is proverb, "that it is even sin to lie upon the devil: for

to lie.

The Papists do belie the

the Gospel.

though by thy lie thou dost never so much speak against the devil, yet in that thou liest, indeed thou workest the devil's work; thou dost him service, and takest the devil's part."

Now, whether then do they godly and charitably, which preachers of either by their pen in writing, or by their words in preaching, do bear the simple people in hand, that those which thus do teach and believe, do go about to make the holy sacrament, ordained by Christ himself, a thing no better than a piece of common baken bread? or that do say, that such do make the holy sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ nothing else, but a bare sign, or a figure, to represent Christ, none otherwise than the ivy-bush doth represent the wine in a tavern; or as a vile person gorgeously apparelled may represent a king or a prince in a play alas! let men leave lying and speak the truth every one, not only to his neighbour, but also of his neighbour, Ephes. iv. for we are members one of another, saith St Paul.

The controversy (no doubt), which at this day troubleth the church (wherein any mean' learned man, either old or new, doth stand in3), is not, whether the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is no better than a piece of common bread, or no; or whether the Lord's table is no more to be regarded than the table of any earthly man; or whether it is but a bare sign or figure of Christ, and nothing else, or no. For all do grant, that St Paul's words do require that the bread which we break is the partaking of [ Moderately learned. ED.]

[ Doth stand in-doth agree. ED.]

the body of Christ: and all also do grant him, that eateth of that bread or drinketh of that cup unworthily, to be guilty of the Lord's death, and to eat and drink his own damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lord's body. All do grant that these words of St Paul (when he saith, "If 1 Cor. viii. we eat, it advantageth us nothing;" or, "if we eat not, we want nothing thereby") are not spoken of the Lord's table, but of other common meats.

controversy

Thus then hitherto yet we all agree. But now let us wherein the see wherein the dissension doth stand. The understanding consisteth. of that wherein it chiefly standeth is a step to the true searching forth of the truth. For who can seek well a remedy, if he know not before the disease?

It is neither to be denied nor dissembled, that in the matter of this sacrament there be divers points, wherein men counted to be learned cannot agree: as, Whether there be any transubstantiation of the bread, or no? Any corporal and carnal presence of Christ's substance, or no? Whether adoration, only due unto God, is to be done unto the sacrament, or no? And whether Christ's body be there offered in deed unto the heavenly Father by the priest, or no? Or whether the evil man receiveth the natural body of Christ, or no? Yet nevertheless, as in a man diseased in divers parts, commonly the original cause of such divers diseases, which is spread abroad in the body, doth come from one chief member, as from the stomach, or from the head; even so, all five aforesaid points do chiefly hang upon this one question, which is, What is the matter of the sacrament, whether it is the natural substance of bread, or the natural substance of Christ's own body? The truth of this question, truly tried out and agreed upon, no doubt will cease the controversy in all the rest. For if it be Christ's own natural body, born of the Virgin; then assuredly (seeing that all learned men in England, so far as I know, both new and old, grant there to be but one substance), then, I say, they must needs grant transubstantiation, that is, a change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ's body: then also they must grant the carnal and corporal presence of Christ's body: then must the sacrament be adored with the honour due unto Christ himself, for the

unity of the two natures in one person: then, if the priest do offer the sacrament, he doth offer indeed Christ himself; and finally, the murderer, the adulterer, or wicked man, receiving the sacrament, must needs then receive also the natural substance of Christ's own blessed body, both flesh and blood.

Now, on the other side, if, after the truth shall be truly tried out, it be found that the substance of bread is the material substance of the sacrament; although, for the change of the use, office, and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one, as was before; if (I say) the true solution of that former question, whereupon all these controversies do hang, be, that the natural substance of bread is the material substance in the sacrament of Christ's blessed body; then must it follow of the former proposition, (confessed of all that be named to be learned, so far as I do know in England,) which is, that there is but one material substance in the sacrament of the body, and one only likewise in the sacrament of the blood, that there is no such thing indeed and in truth as they call transubstantiation, for the substance of bread remaineth still in the sacrament of the body. Then also the natural substance of Christ's human nature, which he took of the Virgin Mary, is in heaven, where it reigneth now in glory, and not here inclosed under the form of bread. Then that godly honour, which is only due unto God the Creator, may not be done unto the creature without idolatry and sacrilege, is not to be done unto the holy sacrament. Then also the wicked, I mean the impenitent, murderer, adulterer, or such-like, do not receive the natural substance of the blessed body and blood of Christ. Finally, then doth it follow, that Christ's blessed body and blood, which was once only offered and shed upon the cross, being available for the sins of all the whole world, is offered up no more in the natural substance thereof, neither by the priest, nor any other thing.

But here, before we go any further to search in this matter, and to wade, as it were, to search and try out, as