THe Gospell of this day (wel beloued in the Lord) contey­neth a narration of suche things, as our master Chris [...] did immediatly before he was (through the couetous­nes of Iudas, & enuy of his own nation) betrayed vnto death. It is a lōg processe as you haue heard, worthy of perpe­tual remembraunce, and a worthy matter to be declared to al men and women. For it set­teth forth plainly afore our eyes, as it wer in a scaffolde the sede promised, which by many darke ridels and figures is signified & shado­wed in Moeses and the Prophetes, and con­teineth the beneuolence, the louing kyndnes, the great tender mercy, and good wil of God the father, who so loued vs that for our ho­nor he suffred his honorable and only begot­ten chylde to be dishonored and oppressed of malicious and couetous men. And that so noble and worthy a benefite should not fall out of remembraunce, which is the alone au­thor of our redemptiō, and our only comfort against sinne, that we should reserue this his louing kindnes in continuall memory, & not [Page] be vnthankefull, he hath commaunded vs by the mouth of Christ our Lorde to celebrate a commemoration of his fauour & clemency, of his sonnes dishonour, & death, and to resorte vnto the holy sacrament of the same, that is, of Christes honorable body and bloud.

Because this matter is so long, that it cā not be worthely declared in one hower, nor [...]wayne, & forasmuch as many be yet ignorāt of the fruit, of the vse and cause, of the mary and swetnesse of the Lordes supper, & knowe not what it meaneth, nor what a sacrament is, and Easter now draweth nigh, at whiche time al men and women dispose them selues to come to Christes banket, as I wold wishe they wold also aswell at other times, and so come do, whose praiers God doth not forget yet because the most part wil not come, but at the aforesaid feast, therfore and also for as much as it is a member & parcel of the gospel of this sonday before Easter. I thought it good to speake now of this matter, which is an abbridgement of the whole scripture, as wel for the erudition of those that be vnlear­ned, as also that suche as be stubbornly wed­ded to their owne iudgements, and are hard­ned against the truth, may not excuse them selues by ignoraunce, when to rendre an ac­count of their faithes they shalbe cited to ap­pere at the barre before the diuine maiestie. But that you may y ^e better impresse in your hartes & cary away that which I shal speke hereof, I wil reherse vnto you that part & mē ber [Page] of this gospel, which cōprehendeth Chri­stes supper.

Whiles they were eating, Iesus toke bread, and when he had geuen thankes, he brake it, and gaue it to the Disciples and saied: Take eat, this is my body. And he toke the cup & thanked, and gaue it them saying: Drink of it euery one, for this is my bloud of the newe Testament shed for many to the forgeuenes of synnes. I say vnto you. I will not drynke henceforth of this fruit of the vyne till that day, when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdome. And when they had geuen praises, they went out in to mount Oliuete.

This matter is declared how we doe receiue Christes body and bloud in the sensible sacrament of bread and wyne, Luke. 22 Mark. 14▪ 1 Cor. 11 & also without the sacrament is shewed in the sixt chapter of S. Iohns Gospell. Ihon. 6 That I may speake hereof to the promotion of Gods glory & finde out suche les­sons & such doctrine in y ^e text which may be to your instruction & edifying, which be assembled here to serue God in praier & hering his word, let vs aske gods help & spirit, for the which I shal desire you to say the lords praier after me. Our fa. &c.

[Page]This Gospel (welbeloued in the lord) is ful of spiritual erudition and heauēly comfort, it hath as many good lessons, & fruitful matters as wordes, yea and as many heresies be gathered of the words therof as good lessons, as shalbe decla­red. Lest thorow plenty of matter I be o­uerlong and tedious, I wil ouerrun it in order, as the text leadeth, speaking much or litle of euery sentence, as I shal see ne­deful for your enstruction, desiring you not to loke for a learned & profound de­claration, but only for a plain exposition and a faithful confession of the catholike faith. First and in the beginning of the supper in that the text saith.

Of this we may learne, that Christ & his disciples did celebrate this sacramēt of his honorable body and bloud, Why Christ ordeined his supper after the eating of the lambe. not after the present vse and maner of the con­gregation, but after other meates and drinkes. First he did eate his passeouer, and Easterlābe with his disciples after the custome of the old testament, Their lābe was a f [...]gure of our sacrament. which passeouer and easterlambe was a figure and shadow of our sacramentall bread & [Page] wyne. For as they of the olde lawe did eat yearly an easterlambe in remēbrāce of their deliueraunce from Egipt and from the expression of Pharao: Of their deliueraunce. so we of the new testament do receiue sacramen­tall bread and wyne in remembraūce of Christes death & passion, through which we ar deliuered from the Egipt of sinne, from the gates of hell, and from the po­wer of the deuil. And as the paschal lābe was ordeined and eaten the night before the children of Israel, were deliuered frō Egipt: so likewyse this sacrament was ordeined and eaten the night before we were deliuered from our sinnes. And as when the Israelites were escaped out of Egipt, they did eate neuertheles the pas­chal lambe, which was called stil the pas­sing by or their passouer and pasport, be­cause it was a remembraūce of their pas­sage out of Egipt, and they eating the same hartely reioysed, offering him sa­crifice, and acknowledging with infinit thankes, that they were the felowship of them, that had such a merciful God: So we now being deliuered from sinne, doe eate neuertheles the sacrament, which is stil called his bodi, that once died for our [Page] deliueraunce, and we hartly reioyce, of­fring to him y ^e sacrifice of praise, acknow­ledging with infinit thankes, that we ar of the feloship of them, which haue such a mercifull and mighty God thorowe Christ. And their lambe was a sacramēt not only of their deliueraunce out of E­gipt, but also it was a sacramēt of Christ to come, Of Christ that he thorow death, should deliuer both the Iewes, and all other men from the tiranny and bondage of Satā, as Iohn the christener taught the Ie­wes saying: Iohn. 1 Ecce agnus dei, qui tollit pec­cata mundi, behold the lambe of God, whiche taketh away the sinnes of the world. He nameth Christ a lābe enstruc­ting vs that their passeouer was a figure of his death and passion. And Paul con­firmeth the same saying: Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. 1 Cor. 5 Christ our paschal lambe is offred vp for vs. Of these textes and similitudes we may gather, that their passeouer was not only a figure & shadowe of Christes death, but also the same vnto them, How our sacramēts and theirs do differ. that our sacramentall bread and wyne is to vs. And when they did eate their lambe, suche as beleued on Christ to come and were by fayth chri­stians [Page] did eate spiritually his fleshe, and drynke his bloud, as truly, as really, and as effectually, as wee doe eate it nowe, which be of the new testament, as shalbe proued more plainly hereafter. Here is the difference, & diuersitie betwene their eating and ours, a lambe was their sacrament, and so was the rock, of which they dranke in the wyldernes, so was manna also, for they had many sacramentes, in whiche they did receiue Christes body and bloud. And some of their sacramēts were continuall, Continual and temporal Sacra­mentes. and other some were temporal. Their easterlambe was a con­tinuall sacrament from the tyme of their deliueraūce out of Egipt, vntil Christes death. Manna also, and the rock were Sacramentes therof, but because they continued but for a tyme, and in one age, they were but temporall Sacra­mentes. We of the newe lawe haue not many Sacramentes hereof, but only one Sacrament of bread, and wyne, in the place and steade of their Easter­lambe, as appeareth of the similitudes afore rehearsed, and also of the institu­tion of Christes supper.

[Page]For the text saith that whiles they were eating, Iesus toke bread & the cup, that is immediatly after that he had finished the ceremony of the passeouer, he ordei­ned his last supper, enstructing vs here­by, that bread & wyne be vnto vs of the new testament thesame in effect, in vse, & operation, that the aforesaid lambe was to the old-christians, which were before the comming of the sede promised.

Why God hath disa­nulled the cites of the old lawe.Here percase you will reply and say. If in the ceremony of the easterlambe thei of the old lawe did eat Christes flesh and drinck his bloud, why is this cere­mony nowe abrogated and disanulled? why haue we a new sacrament of bread and wyne? Is it cōuenient for the diuine maiestie, which is immutable, to make orders and lawes, and to alter & chaunge them againe as men do? Mala. 3 I aunswer: they were vnder the lawe, we ar vnder grace, they were vnder the old testament, we ar heyres of the new testamēt. And bycause our law and theirs, our testament and theirs, our priesthod and theirs, be di­uers and different, therfore we haue di­uers sacramentes from them, both of Christes body and bloud, and also of o­ther [Page] thinges, they had Manna, and a rock, and an easterlambe, we haue only bread and wyne. They had circumcisiō for a continuall sacramēt, & the read sea, and the cloud that went before them out of Egigt for temporall sacramentes, we haue in stede of these one continual sacrament the lauer of regeneration. Nether can any mutabilite be layd vnto God, who is immutable, for this mutation of orders and sacramentes, no more then to the husbandman, whiche commaun­deth his seruauntes to apply other busi­nes in wynter, and other things in som­mer or springtide. This vniuersal world is Gods house, Gods mancion, and pa­laice, they of the olde lawe were his ser­uauntes, and we be his childrē & sonnes thorow Christ. Now euery housholder commaundeth other thinges to his ser­uauntes, and other thynges to his chil­dren. And a king doth not gouerne his realme with one sort of lawes and statu­tes, but maketh positiue lawes for euery time and euery purpose as occasion is ministred, and so doth God. S. Paul declareth this diuersitie and pollicy of al­mighty God very well, where he sayth: [Page] Lex pedagogus est ad Christum, Gal. 3 That is, y ^e lawe was a scholemaister vnto Christ, but fayth being come, we are no longer vnder a scholemaister. A good schole­maister doeth not vse one trade in tea­ching, nor one boke, but diuers trades, & diuers bokes, as his schollers encrese in learning. The Phisition doeth not cure all disseases with one medicine. So the eternall God, ordeyned diuers Sacra­mentes, diuers rytes, and ceremonies in diuers tymes and ages, because of the diuers condicions and natures of men. The Sacramentes of the old lawe dyd shadowe, figure, and preache Christe to come, our Sacramentes do shewe hym as it were vpon a scaffold already come vnto our eyes. Therfore it was conue­nient that their orders and ours should be diuers, lest if their orders did remaine styll, it myght gyue some occasion to Heretikes to deny that Christe is yet come. Many other causes myght be re­hearsed of this mutation of Sacra­mentes, whiche be not so necessary now to be spoken of, therfore I wyll omitte them, and procede to other matters. Albeit the Easter lambe of the Iewes, [Page] which yearly was slaine and eaten in re­membraunce of their deliueraunce from Egipt & in hope of the coming of Christ, whom S. Iohn & Paul do name our ea­ster lambe, albeit I say their sacrament were a figure of our bread and wine, yet we may not gather hereof that the holy communiō of Christes honorable body & bloud is to be resorted vnto, but once a yeare, because thei had but a yearly lābe and an annuall remembraunce, & that al­ways at the feast of Easter, as some by­shops of Rome haue taught in tymes past, which would haue the layte of eue­ry realme to haue but an annuall cōmu­nion that is but once a yeare, & as many apere to be perswaded yet, but vaynly & wickedly. For this is the commō fashiō of the most part of men and women, all the yeare long they absent them selues from gods table. And why? Why men absent thē selues frō Christes table. because they are loth to be pained with the remem­braunce of their sinnes, & with the consi­deration of their offences. The remem­braunce of our offences maketh vs heuy and sorowfull, depriueth vs of all mirrh, bringeth vs into sadnes, and maketh vs tremble for fear of Gods displeasure. [Page] Therfore Iesus the son of Sirach saith. Eccle. 21 zacha. 5 Dentes leonis, dentes eius, sinne hath teeth, like vnto a Lion. And the Prophet Za­chary compareth it to lead. Dauid he na­meth it a burthen saying: Mine iniquite is ouer my head & doth presse me downe with a greuous burden. Psal. 37 Because I say they wil not fele this burthen, & because they desire to liue merely in the pleasurs of the flesh, in dronkennes, in hordom, in glotony, in feasting and banketting, in oppression of their neighbours, in co­uetousnes, in vnrightuous dealing al y ^e year long, therfore they will take no re­morse, no penaunce, no remembraunce of their sinnes but once a yeare. What nede I sayth the carnall man to his own heart within him selfe, what nede I to trouble my self with feare of Gods dis­pleasure, with the memory of my sinnes with the remembraunce of hel, of death, of the deuil euery weke or euery month? How can a man be mery and thinke al­ways of death and hel? no, I wil take mi pleasure, I wil laugh and be mery al the yeare, I wil do what my list, & at Easter I wil repent, then I wil come to the Lordes table, but not before. Examin thine [Page] own thoughtes, thou oppressor, thou dronkard, thou horekeper, thou flatte­rer, and enter into your own hartes, you shal find this to be the cause of your lōg absence, and of your seldome comming to the Lordes bāket. For as he that hath a hungry and a gready stomack to hys meat, declareth hereby his body to be voyd of all corruption, and that he is in good & perfit health: so I say vnto you, to obserue an annuall cōmunion is a to­ken of an vnrightuous man, of a stub­borne seruaunt, of an vnquiet woman, & to come often is a token of one whiche striueth against his flesh, which kepeth battell with the deuill, and laboreth day­ly to liue Godly & blamelesse. For here we remembre Christes death & passion. The remembraunce of Christes death maketh vs to remembre our own offen­ces & sinnes, for he died not for himself, but for our iniquities and misdedes. The remēbraunce of our offences wrappeth vs in sorowe and heuines? Sorowe and heuines do cause vs to fly vnto God for his help & mercy as it is written, Psal. 117 in trou­ble I cried to thee, who embraceth vs li­ke a louing father. For as sorow and heuines [Page] entred fyrst into this worlde for sinne, Gen. 3 and for the gylt of Adams disobe­dience, so the same now doth expel sinne againe, & leade vs into vertue, as Paul teacheth. Tristitia secundum deum opera­tur penitentiam in salutem. Godly sorow sayth Paul causeth repentaunce vnto saluation. [...] Cor. 7 Moreouer in that the texte sayth that whyles they were eating, Ie­sus toke bread and ordeined his last sup­per, some do reason hereof that the Sa­crament is not to be receiued fastyng as the custome nowe is, It is best to come to Christes banket fa­sting. but after other meates and drynkes, after a certayne re­fection, banket, or maundy, which they say those that be ryche should make to refresh the power and nedy. For the de­fence of this maūdy they alledge not on­ly Christes example, but also where it is written, [...] Cor. 11 that the Corinthiās in dede kept such a maundy: But Paul reprehendeth them therfore, and disanulleth their cu­stome, as an occasion of glotony, of drō ­kennes, of pride, of contentiō, and other misbehauiour in the churche, saying vn­to them: haue ye not houses to eate and drynke in? or els dispyse ye the congre­gation of God? And agayne: if any man [Page] hunger, let hym eate at home, that ye come not together vnto condempnati­on: nor Christ dyd not celebrate this sa­crament after other meates and drinkes to stablyshe any suche custome, nor to geue vs any example, to doe the lyke, but rather to teache vs, that our Sacra­mentall bread is succeded in stead of the Iewes Easterlambe, and that their ce­remony is nowe disanulled and abroga­ted. Therfore the vniuersall Churche commonly accordyng to Paules mynd to the Corinthians vseth nowe to cele­brate the Lordes supper fastyng with­out any Maundy, and not after other meates. Notwithstandyng as he doeth well, whiche commeth fastynge to the Lordes table, so he doth not ill, whyche by occasion commeth after that he hack eaten and dronke. Meat and drynke do not defyle, doe not make a man an vn­mete gest for Christes borde, for the ma­riage dyner of the kynges sonne, but lacke of the wedding garment, that is, synne and iniquitie.

There is no commaundement in the scriptures, Math. 22 which restraineth those that [Page] haue eaten from the communion Paul reproueth not the Corinthians for any suche thynge, but because they made Maundeis and bankettes in the house of praier. In their own houses he doth not forbid them to eate, and drinke befor the communion, but permitteth it, and leaueth them to their own libertie & ne­cessitie herein saying: [...] Cor. 11 If any mā hunger let him eat at home. I touche this mat­ter partly thorow occasion of the text, & partly also to reforme those, if they wyll be reclaimed, whiche for lack of know­ledge, or offended with those that come after meat thorow some necessitie which offence commeth of a good zele and of a good entent, but good ententes must be reformed according to knowledge. And percase some will be offended with me for vttering this matter. Be not offen­ded with truth, be not disceiued, nor be­witched with superstition and blynde zele, but cōsider my wordes indifferētly, or rather not my wordes, but y ^e wordes of Chrisostom, a learned and an elder father of christes church, who saith a great deale more in this matter, then I haue said, whose saying moued me [...] this [Page] tyme to touch this matter. Chrisost. Homil. 9. ad popul. Antioch. For onles he or some other learned man did affirme it, I would not teach it. He in his .ix. Ho­mily ad populum Antiocheum, is earnest against those, which withdraw them frō the cōmunion many times, because they were not fasting, and he exhorteth them to come otherwhiles after meat saying: Si tibi persuaseris, quod post cibum & po­tum, & ad [...] conuenire necesse est, om­nino, & inuitus multam geres curam mode­stie, & neque in ebritatem, neque in craxulā vnquam deduceris. Cura enim & expecta­tio in ecclesiam cōueniendi, cum honesta mē ­sura cibum & potum sumere docet, ne ingressus & fratribus commixtus postea vinum redolens, & inordinate eructans, ab omni­bus praesentibus deridiaris. Which words be thus much to say. If thou determine with thy self to come otherwhyles to the communion after thou hast eat & dronk, by this meanes thou shalt learne to be modest and sober in thy behauiour, thou shalt neuer offende in dronkēnes, nor de­file thy self with glotony, but remēbring Gods table, thou wilt take meat & drink with moderation, lest comming to the church, if thou smell of wyne, or belche [Page] inordinatly through the fulnes of y ^e sto­mak, thou be a laughing stock to al that shall se thee in that taking. Whensoeuer thou arte Godly affected, whensoeuer thou hast remorse for thy sinnes, with an ernest entent of amendment, and refor­matiō of thy liuing, be not afraid to com to Christes banket, to the mariage diner of the kinges son, whether thou hast ea­ten & dronke, or art fasting. Be afraid if thou being an officer or magistrate dost deuise euill statutes ether ecclesiastical or temporal contrary to the statutes of the eternal God, M [...]gi [...]a. or if thou doest make vn­lawful grauntes and geue dispensations lycences and cockettes, to cary wol, lea­ther, corne, or other wares ouer the sea, enpouerishyng many thousandes to en­riche thy selfe and fewe others. T [...]ylers. Be a­frayd if thou be a Tayler, and doest steal part of their cloth, which cost them dear, from thy customers, makyng them be­leue that no lesse then thre yardes wyll serue their tourn, when two yardes be sufficient.

Drapers. PoticarisBe afraid to come, if thou kepe a dra­pers, or an Haberdashers, or Poticaries shop, and doest oppresse thy brethren by [Page] takyng immoderat and vnreasonable gaynes. If thou be a husbandman, Husbādmē and wylt not store markettes and fayres, ne­ther with grayne, nor with cattell, which is thy vocation and calling. If thou be a Butcher and wilt not sell thy Beues, Butchers. Muttons, and Veales, at the Kynges price, or for reasonable vantage, but kil­lest them without effusion and lettyng fourth the bloud, that they may waye more, to the poysonyng of the eaters. If thou be a baker, Bakers. and doest breake the kynges assyse and statute, hurtyng ma­ny to benefyt thy self. Pastor [...]. If thou be a Per­sone hauing cure of soull, and yet doest nothyng therfore, but fede thyne owne body, and lyue idely, and doest not only not preache thy self, but also when other preache to thy paryshioners thou defa­cest them behind their backes, and doest discredite thē, asmuch as lieth in thee, as I knowe one was defaced not long ago, whiche preached holsome and fruitfull, doctrine euen in this place. If I saye thou be such a one, presume not to come to Christes banket, lest in his steade Sa­than enter in to thee, as he did into Iu­das, & y ^• be expelled into vtter darknes. [Page] Presume not to come without thy wed­ding garment, without a renewed hart, in malice and out of charitie, in synne & iniquitie. Be afraid if thou be an extor­cioner, an oppressor of others for thyne own commoditie, if thou be a flatterer, a pyke thanke, a tale bearer, a spy, or an in­strument vnto oppression and iniquitie, if thou be a sower of debate, strife and variaunce, if thou be a sclaunderer, that is an yl speaker of goodmen. For it is law­full to say, that an euill man is an euill man, and that an oppressor is an oppres­sor, if thou hast admonished hym, and he not amend, Who is a sclaūderer. this is no sclaunder. Yea I say vnto you, that it is flattery, it is gre­uous sinne to speake well of such an euil man, for it is sinne to lye on the deuil ac­cording to the common sayinge. Flattery. Esay. 5 Wo worth them sayth the Prophet Esay, that call euill good, and good euil, which maketh darkenes light, and light darke­nes, that maketh sower sweet, and sweet sower, wo be vnto them. We must blesse euill men, that is pray for their amende­ment and reformation, so Christes com­maundement is to be taken, whiche he gaue his disciples. Math. 5 [...] [Page] [...], blesse them that curse you▪ that is, pray for them, for they corrupt the text which turne it speake wel of thē, onles they expound well speaking to be praier to God for their conuersion. We may not speake well of them whiche be notable euel, for we may not ly, we may not flatter, lest that curse of the Prophet fall vpon vs, which saith, wo be to you▪ y ^t call euil, good &c. Therfore let vs say y ^e truth of such euil men that shame and re­port may cause them to amend, and that other may be afrayd to commit the same faultes, and to follow their vngracious example. If we praise euil men, besydes that we ly, we encourage other to folow them, we imbolden them to go forward in wickednes, and to reioyse in synne, we do breake Gods commaundement, which saith: Non dices falsum testimoniū, Exod. 20 Deut. 5 thou shalt be no false witnes. But of this in aniwyse beware, that thou do not re­port euil of those, which be Godly. For as the other is flattery, and lying, so this is sclaunder, and railing, and against the aforesaid precept, and the Prophet also crieth wo vnto such, that call good euill, Esay. [...] and lyght darkenes, and sweet sower. [Page] Before thou comest to Gods [...]ord, exa­myn & try thy self whether thou be gilty of any of these thinges afore rehersed, of oppression, of flattery, of malice, of flaunder, of lieng, of enuy, of batemaking. Folow the councell of S. Paul, iudge thy self, that thou be not iudged of the Lord. And as housholders and maisters of col­leges do cal their stewardes & bowsers to an accompt and audit, [...] Cor. 11 to know what they haue receiued, and what they haue expended, and laid forth for euery thing, what is not receiued, and what remay­neth still in their hādes, so do thou, make thi self a iudge ouer thine own consciēce, call thy soul to giue an accompt of al his thoughtes, call thine eies to a reconing for all their wanton and vnchast lokes, examyn thine eares, whether they haue bene corrupted with flattery, with de­traxion, or with euyll counsell, call thy handes to accounpt for couetously ta­kyng that which was not thyne, aske ac­coumpt and a reconyng of thy tongue, what othes, what slaunders, what brags what baudry, what euill councell, what heresy, and what pestiferous doctrine he hath sowed and vttered. For if thou do [Page] not proue and examyn thy selfe accor­ding to Pauls counsell, but come with a defyled conscience to Gods bord, thou doest not eate Christes body, whiche is the bread of life, and is receiued only vn­to health and saluation, but thou doest eate Panem mortis, the bread of death, the bread of iudgement, the bread of damp­nation, and art gylty, as Paul sayth: of the body and bloud of Christ, 1 Cor. 1 [...] because thou doest abuse, defyle, and despise the Sacrament therof. But to returne to the text, S. Mathewe wryteth that our Sauiour Christ gaue thankes, and that after thākes rendred he brake bread and distributed it to his Disciples.

Where as Mathew, and Luke saye, that He gaue thankes, Luk. 22 Mark. 14. Marke hath these wordes: He toke bread and blessed and brake it.

Here we say that to blesse is to geue thankes to God for all his innumerable benefites, To blesse is not to make a Crosse. and namely for our redemp­tion through Christ. No saith the Papist to blesse is to make a signe of the Crosse on the Sacrament. And to defende this interpretation they alledge. [Page] S. Pauls authoritie, who saith: is not y ^e cup of blessing, whiche we blesse, parta­king of the bloud of Christ? 1 Cor. 10 I aunswer. The Greke worde in these two textes which they alledge for their crossing is [...], which worde cannot signifie to crosse. For wher as Paul termeth it the cup of blessing, which we blesse, y ^e greke is [...]. And for the englishe he blessed and brake the bread, Marke saith in the greke ton­gue, Mark. 14. in which he wrote his Gospell [...]. Which word I saye can not signifie to make a signe of the crosse. For the Grekes neuer vsed it in such signification, and the Orientall and Greke churche neuer toke it so, nether do we read, that the Greke church vsed euer any such gesture vpō the sacramēt. Then what is y ^e meaning of these words he blessed and brake the bread. You shall vnderstande, that to blesse is a word of many significations, and many tymes vsed in the scriptures, and yet throghout the whole Bible it doth neuer signifie to make a signe of y ^e crosse. I do not mean, nor affirme y ^t it is euill, to make a crosse on thy forehead, but to teach that Christ [Page] crossed the sacrament, and to defend crossing to be a necessary ceremony to be vsed at the distribution of Christes sup­per, this is papistical leuē, supersticious doctrine, & to make the scriptures a nose of wax, a tenes baull, and to wrest them to euery purpose. To blesse here is to gi­ue thākes to God the father for his merciful beholding of our misery, for pardo­ning Adams disobedience, and for sen­ding his sonne to be borne of a woman, to grind and breake in sonder the Ser­pentes head, that is to destroy the po­wer of the deuill through death, thorow his crosse, and by theffusiō and shedding of his bloud. And the cup of blessing, of which Paul speaketh, is asmuch to say, as the cup of thankesgeuing. For he ex­poundeth it euen so in the next Chapter himself. And where as Marke saith that Christ blessed, Mathew and Luke say, expoūding on another, that he gaue thā ­kes. For this vse, entent, and purpose this sacrament was chiefly, and princi­pally ordayned, that we should not for­get the great clemency and special fauor of the eternal God for the death and passion of Christ our Lord, but reserue this [Page] his benefit, in continuall memory. And therfore many of the elder Fathers doe name this holy Sacrament [...] or [...], that is a renderyng of prayse and a thankesgeuyng. It foloweth in the text how after that Christ had geuen thankes, That he brake the bread and gaue it to his Disciples and bad them take and eate it, and he toke the Cup lykewyse and gaue it them saying: Drinke of it euery one.

Or as Luke saith, he toke the cup, and sayd: Accipite and diuidite inter vos, take this and deuide it among you. Christ our maister doeth not receiue this holy Sacrament alone, Christ or­deineth he­re a cōmu­nion, not a priuate masse. Actu. 2 but with his Disci­ples, nether do we reade in all the newe Testament, that euer any receiued it pri­uatly, or seuerally from others. The Ac­tes of y ^e Apostles testifie that they which beleued resorted together oftentymes to celebrate this Sacrament. But they doe not speake of any priuate receit: for Christ ordayneth here no priuat Masse, but a Communion. Let vs folowe hys example, and celebrate Christes supper, not as our forefathers haue done many yeares and of long tyme, but as Christ, who is before all tyme and all yeares▪ [Page] did celebrate it first, and as his Disciples did vse it in the primatiue & Apostolike church. You will say there hath bene a custome cōtrary many yeares, An obiect. and I haue heard some say, that when the deuotion of the layte and temporalte waxed cold, that the Apostles and their successors gaue liberte to ministers to receiue it a­lone. I aunswere, this custome begon but of late dayes, Thanswe [...] and not many yeares agone. For as Cronicles do make plain and euident relation, Gregory surna­med the great the first Bishop of Rome, Gregorius magnus. of that name, was the first founder of priuat Masses, who was Anno dom. 595 almost for the space of six hundred yeres there was no priuat receit. Moreouer this is most certayne, and true, that the Orientall church neuer vnto this day did allow or vse priuate masses, The East churche. as app [...] ­reth plainly of the name, which thei giue to this sacrament. For they cal it [...] that is a cōmunion, or a cōming and as­sēble together of many in one place. And for an euident profe of this, you shal vn­derstand y ^t Plinius, he that was Profos Bithiniae, Plinius. that is gouernour & captain of Bithinia, In the time of y ^e wise Emperor [Page] Traianus, this Pliny I say in a certen Epistle, which he writeth to the forsayd Emperour, De ritu christianorum, of the rights and fashions of the christians, is a witnes hereof, that the Grekes in his ti­me had a communion, and no priuat masses. And other learned writers do credibly report, that certain churches of the Venetians within this .xxx. yeares, and lesse did not celebrate the Lordes supper alone, The Uenetians. or any man priuatly by himselfe. And it may wel be, that they do so stil at this day: of these it is euident that priuat masses be not of so auncient, and long cō tinuaunce, or so vniuersally receiued, as the papistes do face and bragge the mat­ter after their accustomed sort. But you wil go further with me & say: If the laite will receiue, An obiect. they may, for they were ne­uer restrained, but if they will not, thin­king themselues vnworthy to receiue it often thēselues, why may not the priest receiue it alone for them. We may pray one for another, Thanswer so we ar exhorted to do, but no man may receiue the sacrament for others, but for himself only. That which thou receiuest, thou receiuest by thine own faith, and for spiritual fode to [Page] thyne own soul, and not to others. For it is written, iustus ex fide sua viuet, the rightuous man shall liue by faith, Abac. [...] Rom. 1 Hebr. 10 by his own faith, and not by an other mans faith, nor by anothers receit. And as no man hath norishment or sustenaunce, of the meat which another doth eat, so this spiritual fode doth profit only such, as take and eat it themselues, according to Christes precept, they be not edified, nor refresshed with an other mans spirite, with an other mans faith, or receit, no more then they be regenerat & renewed with the baptime of others. 1 Cor. 1 [...] For if it be true that Paul saith: Qui enim manducat & bibit indigne, iudicium sibi manducat et bibit, that is he that eateth and drinketh vnworthely, eateth and drinketh to his own condemnatiō, & not to any other mans condemnatiō, Ergo he that eateth and drinketh worthely, eateth but to his own health and saluation, and not to the health and profit of others. The benefit, the fruit, and the whole cōmodite of this sacrament dependeth vpon the promises which Christ hath annexed to it, whiche promises be pronounced only to those, that come to his supper themselues, as [Page] these promisses. Whosoeuer eateth my flesh, Iohn. [...] and drinketh my bloud, hath eter­nal life, I wyl raise him vp (saith Christ) at the last day, and he dwelleth in God, and God in him: these promisses I say be not made to thee, onles thou come to Gods table thyself, another mans receit doth nothing profit, or edify thee. Ther­fore Paul vnto the Corinthians, after that he restraineth them from making any banket or refection before this sup­per, [...] Cor. 11 afterward speaking of this Sacra­ment, he commaundeth boeth priestes and others, not to receiue one for ano­ther, but one to tary for another, saying: Alius alium expectate, cum conuenitis ad manducandum: Tary sayth Paul one for another, when ye come together to eate. He speaketh these wordes of Christes supper, for he forbiddeth the Corinthiās in the same Chapter, to eate any other meat in the house of prayer, then bread and wyne in commemoration of the death of Christ. Ambrose a learned and holy father of Christes church, S. Ambr. doeth so construe and take this text disalowyng and reprouing al priuat receit, and also Theophilact. Theophil. For Ambrose saith vpon [Page] this text: Ab inuicem expectandum est, vt multorum oblatio simul celebretur & vt omnibus ministretur. That is to say: we must tary for others, that many may offer vp thankes and prayses, and that all the cō ­gregation may receyue. Thankes be vnto God, that we haue Christes supper in that fashion and maner, which he him selfe obserued, yet because all men be not perswaded, and some doe murmur and grudge at this Godly reformation, and of a stubbornes absent them selues from the holy communion, and would flye backe into Egipt agayn to heare Mas­ses, as they were wont to do, I thought it necessary to touche this matter to re­forme their iudgementes, if they wylbe reclaymed.

What word of God, what authoritie of scriptures can be alledged for priuate masses? Or who is able to shewe, that euer any of the Apostles, any holy man in the primatiue church, or any of the el­der Fathers before Pope Gregory, did celebrate priuatly? If there be nether ex­ample of any holy man, nor no autorite, no text, no testimony of the scripture to mainteine them, let vs conclude that it [Page] is but a dreame and fantasy of man, sub­mitting our iudgemētes to Gods boke. Moreouer as Christ did not ordeine his supper to be receiued priuatly for bene­factors ether dead, or aliue, or for others, no more did he eleuate and lift vp the sa­cramēt ouer his head to be sene and worshipped of his disciples. The eleua­tion. He gaue it them into their handes to eate, and not to ho­nor it, to receiue it, and not to worship it with holding vp of their hāds, & knocks on their brestes. Only God is to be ho­nored with this kind of reuerence, & no sacramēt, for God is not a sacramēt, nei­ther is the sacramēt God. What a sacra­ment is, is to longe a matter to entreat nowe, because I wil not wery you, I wil difer this point vnto the next sermon. Then I wil shew you also how Christes body is in the holy sacrament, & procede further into the text. Let vs vse it, as Christ, & his Apostles did. If thou wilt be more deuout, then they were, be not deceiued, but beware y ^t thy deuotion be not idolatry. Christ gaue it thē into their handes, It is best to take the sacrament into our handes. not into their mouthes. Nether be thou afraid to take, and hādel it with thy handes, as they did. Consider not [Page] how it hath bene vsed in times past, the counsel holden at Rotomage, Concil. Rotomag. did first for­bid men to take it in their hands, regard more Christes example, and the exāple of his Disciples, and of the primatiue churche, whiche alwayes did take it into their handes, then the late example of our forefathers. But thou wylt say, the kings boke, made by the learned clergy and wyse men of this realme, according to Gods word, and confirmed by most high authoritie of the Lordes and com­mons of the Parliament, commaūdeth me to receiue the holy Sacrament at the priestes handes into my mouth. As the Apostles commaunded all christen men and women, Act. 15. to abstain from bloud▪ and from straungled meates, to beare with those that were weake, and for other cer­tein considerations, which cōmaundmēt S. Paul afterward disanulleth, profes­syng no meat to be vncleane, Rom. 14▪ Tit. 1 and licen­sing them to eate both bloud and straun­gled, whiche licence they embraced wyl­lingly and obediently: and as they of the primatiue church commaunded the peo­ple to receiue it at their mouthes, becau­se some receiuing it in their handes, dyd [Page] conuey away the Sacrament secretly to abuse it to superstitiō and magical vses. So the king commaundeth the same in dede for like considerations for a tyme & season for an vniformitie, and to beare with thy infirmitie and weakenes, vntil thou shalt haue more knowledge by rea­dyng and hearyng Gods sacred word, and vntyll thou shallt be growen a strōg and a perfit man in Christes holy reli­gion, entending as I take it when thy heart is tilled with the seede of Gods worde, and able to digest stronger meat, to make an vniforme lawe to the con­trary, and to commaunde all men, wo­men and children, to receiue it with their hands, as priestes do, and as Christ and his Disciples did, and the layte of the primatiue church. For indifferent thinges the kynges maiestie with his clergie and the aduise of his Parliamēt may do and vndo, forbid and commaund, and make one lawe this yeare, and an other cleane contrary the next yeare. Therfore when soeuer the same authoritie shal will thee to take it in thy handes agayne, or if thei shall wyll thee to receiue it syttyng, thou [Page] must as willyngly obey their commaū ­dement, as they of the primatiue church did embrace Paules commaundement touching bloud and straungled meates, notwithstanding it was a contrary commaundement to that which all the Apo­stles had concluded vpon a little before, Act. 15 as is regestred. In the meane tyme I do not bid thee disobey, or breake their first commaundement. But if it be an indifferent thyng, thou wylt say why may I not do as I list, or how may they forbid me to take it with my mouth, for then they make it not indifferent. It is not euyll to receyue with thy mouth, but it is better to receiue it in thy handes, for as muche as Christes Disciples did so, and in indiffererent thynges the magi­strates may commaunde thee to do that is the better, yea or that which is worse, as they shall see cause and considerati­ons. Prepare thy heart therfore to obe­dience in suche thynges, and be as ready to receyue it in thy handes as with thy mouth, be as ready to receiue it syttyng, as knelyng, yea euen to morow, if they shall wyll thee so to doe.

[Page]And as thou doest willingly obey them in that thei bid thee take it w ^t thy mouth, so obey them concerning adoration, for in that thei commaunde that the Sacra­ment shal not be heued, nor lift vp, they forbid thee to honor it.

Thus I haue declared you my faithe and knowledge, The cōclusion with [...]umera­ [...]on & pra­ [...]er. that is why God ordei­ned his supper after y ^e eating of the lābe, that their lambe was a figure of our sa­cramental bread and wyne, a commemoration of the deliueraunce, and a Sacra­ment of Christes death, that the Iewes had some cōtinual rites and sacramētes, and other some temporal. I shewed you how their sacramentes and ours, howe their receit & ours doth differ, why God who is immutable disanulled their rits, and ordained new rites and newe cere­monies for vs, for what causes men ab­sent them selues from Christes banket, to which they should come not annually but continually, and that as it is best to come fasting therto, so it is not euil to re­ceiue after meat and drinke. I haue pro­ued, that to blesse is not to make a crosse vpon the sacrament, but to render than­kes to God the father for the remission [Page] of our sinnes through the sede promised, that Christ ordeineth here no priuate Masse, but a communion, and that the scriptures and the Oriental churche, and S. Ambrose a godly and learned father of the Latin church, disalowe all priuate receit. And that as it is not euill to recei­ue the holy sacrament at thy mouth, so it is better to take it in thy hāds, as Christ and his Apostles did, and the laite of the primatiue church. These matters be tou­ched hetherto, but onles God inwardly with his spirit do teache you this Phy­losophy and wisdome, and transforme your hearts and iudgementes, leading you into all truthe, my preaching is but lost labour. Therfore let vs call vpon the name of God with praier, and inuocatiō for his help and holy spirit. Let vs pray for the vniuersall company of Christes church throughout all Realmes and do­minions, whersoeuer they dwel, namely for the congregation of Englande and Irelande, desiring the ete [...]nall God of his fatherly mercy to cōtinew & streng­then both them and vs in the confession and obedience of his worde and truthe. Also for al infideles and vnbeleuers, that [Page] God may turne their hartes to beleue vpon his sonne Iesus Christ our Lorde, for S. Paul vnto Timothe commaun­deth vs to pray for all men. For the kin­ges maiestie a prince of moste excellent hope, that vertue and knowledge may dwell in his noble hart. For these thinges, for the remission of our sinnes, and for Gods helpe hereafter in all our wor­kes, words & though­tes, I shall desier you to say a praier af­ter me.(⸫)

IN my last Sermon welbeloued in the Lord, where as I began to declare vnto you y ^e Lordes supper, which was a part and membre of the Gospel, and thorow plenty of matter I did not ende the same, now occording to my promes I wyll shew you what a Sacrament is, and howe Christes body and bloud be present in his holy supper.

Thus much remaineth yet to be spokē of: Take eat (saith Christ) this is my body. And likewyse of the Cup he saith: Drinke of it euery one: For this is my bloud of the newe Testament, shed for many, to the forgiuenes of sinnes. I say vnto you: I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the vine tyll that day, when I shall drinke it new with you in my fathers kingdom. And when they had song praises, they wēt out into moūt Oliuet.

That I may declare this heauēly matter to Gods honour and finde out suche lessons and eruditiō as may be mete for this audience and for your edifying and enstruction, which be assembled here to serue God in prayer and hearyng his [Page] word, let vs aske Gods help and his ho­ly spirit, for the whiche I shall desier you to say the Lordes prayer after me. Our father which art in heauen. &c.

There is no matter in the holy scrip­ture welbeloued in the Lord, more neces­sary to be knowen and to be discussed, then these wordes of our sauiour Iesus Christ, This is my body, & this is my bloud of the new Testament. There is no text, which hath bene so abused and racked to maintein superstition and diuers purpo­ses. And where as Christ ordeineth here a sacrament of vnitie to knit vs together in peace, amitie, and loue, Inimicus homo super sen [...]inauit rirania, that is the deuill, Math. 1 [...] who goeth about to depraue all Godly thinges, hath sowen so many tares, and such pestiferous opinions, and hurtfull sedes, and dampnable doctrine in mens harts, by his ministers the Papistes, the questionistes, scholemen, & the Anabap­tis [...]es, that nothing nowe is a matter of more contention, of more debate, strife, & variaunce, not only betwene man and man, but also betwene cōtries and king­domes, because euery man is wedded stubbornly to his own iudgement, and [Page] where as they should reforme their opi­nions and submit their iudgementes to Gods scriptures, as to the touchstone which trieth good from euil, they rather do rack & wrest Gods word making it a mariners slop, or a nose of wax, & bow­yng it vnto euery purpose. Therfore I thought it good to vtter my knowledge which is but smal in this matter, not to teach such as be enstructed, & alredy rype in knowledge, of whom I am desirous to lerne my self, but partly for their sakes and eruditiō, which be vnlearned, & of y ^e laite, that thei mai know how to prepare themselues to come to Gods borde this holy time of Easter, & at other times, & partly also to testifie & professe my con­science and faith in this matter.

Many doe affirme and thinke these wordes of Christ (this is my body) to be a lyke phrase, a like kynde and a lyke maner of speche, as when he sayth: Ego sum vitis, Iohn. 15.11.14. Luke. 5 Math. 9 Apoc. 18 I am the vyne, I am the dore, I am the way, I am the bridgrom. They be no like phrases, but far diuers and dif­ferent. For the vine is no sacrament, ne­ther the dore, nor the wey, nor the brid­grom, be no sacramentes, but metapho­res [Page] and borowed speches. The bread of which Christ said: this is my body, & the mine which he affirmeth to be his bloud be not bare and naked metaphores, as y ^e aforesaid phrases are, but they be sacra­mentes, of his honorable body, & comfortable bloud, as both the Occidental and Oriētal, & the Greke church, & al writers both new & olde, do acknowledge & con­fesse with one voyce. For al christendom haue always agreed in this point. Ther­fore the nature of a sacramēt being tho­rowly knowē & examined & tried, it will teach you y ^e meaning of Christes words & how he is present in his supper. What is a sacrament. What a sacrament is I wil not deuise a discrip­tion of mine own head, nor shew a fantasy of mine own braine, I will folowe in this matter the sentence, & iudgementes of others, whose excellēt lerning & singu­ler vertues ar knowē to al the world. S. Austin an elder & holy father of Christes church, S. Austyn de catechi. rudib. & a mā of a most ripe iudgemēt & sharpe searching wit in the scriptures, in his boke de catechisandis rudibus, defineth a sacrament thus: Sacramentum est signa­culum inuisibilis gratiae, a Sacrament is a visible, a sensible, & an outward signe, or [Page] token of an inuisible grace or benefit. And he expresseth the meaning of this definition, more plainly in a certain letter, verely in his .xxiii. Epistle, which he writeth to one Bonifacius .2. Epist. 23 Wher he wit­nesseth all sacramentes to be figures and similitudes of the benefit & grace, whiche they do represent and signifie, saying. If sacramētes haue not certain similitudes of these thinges, wherof they are Sacra­mentes, then are they no Sacramentes. And for this similitude for the most part they take the names of the very things. And S. Cyprian hath euen the very sa­me doctrine, S. Cyprian de chrism. and the same wordes in a certaine sermon, which he made de chris­mate of annointing. If therfor the bread of which Christ saith this is my body, be a sacrament, as can not be denied, then it hath the name of Christes body, because of some similitudes, whiche shalbe de­clared streightwaies, and not because of any transubstantiation, that is to say, it is a sensible, and an outward signe of his holy fleshe, and the wyne likewyse is a sensible signe of his honorable bloude without any mutation, chaunge, or alte­ration of the natures and substaūces ei­ther [Page] of bread or wyne. But because this is a darke and a secret mistery, I wil as­say to expresse it more euidently, and to declare the similitudes and properties, which do chaunge the names of bread & wyne, but not their natures and essence. Geue diligent hede, & ponder well what I shall say, for this matter is very hard. Whē our sauiour Christ affirmeth bread to be his body, and wyne to be his bloud he ordeineth a Sacrament, that is, he ge­ueth the name of the thing to the signes of bread and wyne, so that notwithstan­ding the matter, the nature, and subance of the signes, do remayne and continue. Onles their substaunce, and natures do remaine, I say vnto you, bread & wyne can be no Sacramentes. For sacramēts as I told you before out of S. Austin, ar so called of y ^e similitudes of those things▪ to which they be sacramentes. Take a­way the matter, the substaunce, and na­ture of bread and wyne, and thou takest away all similitudes, whiche must of ne­cessitie be in the signes of bread & wyne after the consecration, and in that thei be sacramentes. For all the elder and lear­ned fathers of Christes churche, do con­fesse [Page] with one voyce, & the scriptures do witnesse the same, Christ affirmeth bread to be his body for thre properties and simili­tudes. that there must be thre similitudes & properties in bread & wine a similitude of norishing, a similitude of vnitie, and a similitude of conuersion, for which properties & similitudes bread & wyne, be named Christes body & bloud, and not for any transubstantiation or al­teration of their natures. The similitude and propertie of norishing is this, A similitu­de of nory­shing. that as bread and wyne do norish our bodies and comfort our outward mā, so the bo­dy and bloud of Christ, be the meat and foode of our soules & do comfort our in­ward man. Christ expresseth this simili­tude calling himself Panē vitae, Iohn. 6 the bread of eternall lyfe, and professing his fleshe to be very meat, and his bloud to be veri drynke. That is the foode and spirituall sustenaunce of mans soull and mynde. This I say is one cause, why Christ af­firmeth bread to be his body, and wyne to be his bloud, S. Hiero. super Ma. as S. Hierom teacheth vs wryting thus of Christes supper vpō Mathew: After the eatyng of the mysti­call lambe with his Apostles, Assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, he toke [Page] (saieth this holy father) he tooke bread which comforteth the heart of man. And that this is S. Hieroms meaning, Beda in Lucam. Beda doth declare, who vpon Luke doeth set out this sentence of Hierom more co­piously saying: Because bread doeth cō ­firme or strengthen the flesh, and wyne worketh bloud in the fleshe, therfore is the bread referred mistically vnto Chri­stes body, and the wyne is referred vn­to his bloude.

Another cause why bread and wyne is named Christes fleshe and bloude, is another similitude of vnitie, A similitu­de of vnite whiche is thus muche to say. As the Sacramental lofe, of whiche we doe eate commyng to the communiō, is made of many cornes of wheat by the lyquore of water, kno­den into doghe, and yet it is but one lofe or one cake. And as the holy wyne is made of the iuyce of dyuers and many grapes, and yet is but one cup of wyne, so all they that eate Christes body and drynke hys bloude through faythe, though they be neuer so many, yet by the lyquor of charitie and loue they are made one body and one fleshe, the mysticall body of the Sonne of God, [Page] which is his church and congregation, & not his natural body S. Paul expresseth this similitude witnessing that the bread is a Sacrament, not only of Christes natural body, but also of the congregation, and mistical body saying: [...] Cor. 10 Vnus panis v­num corpus multi sumus, that albeit we be many, yet notwithstanding we are one lofe, and one body. What a lofe are we? Verely euen Triticeus panis, a wheaten lofe, by the similitude and propertie of vnitie, which I haue declared. S. Cipriā also in his sixt letter, Cypr. lib. 1 Epist. 6 which he writeth to one Magnus, in his first boke aloweth this similitude wryting thus.

The Lord (saith this holy father) cal­leth bread made of many graines or cor­nes his body, & he nameth wyne made of the ioyce of the clusters of diuerse grapes his bloud. And S. Austin In sermone de sacra feria paschae, in a certen sermone, which he made of the holy feast of passe­ouer alloweth the same similitude or propertie, prouing vs by this propertie to be Christes body, saying: because Christ hath suffered for vs, he hath betaken vn­to vs in this sacramēt his body & bloud, which he hath also made our selues. For [Page] we are also made his body, and by his mercy we are euen the same thing, that we receiue. And afterward he sayth in y ^e sayd sermon: now in the name of Christ you are come as a man would say to the chalice of the Lord: there are ye vpon the table, and there are ye in the chalice. The third similitude of cōuersion, A similitu­de of cōue [...] sion. for y ^t which also the Sacrament is affirmed to be Christes flesh and bloud, is this: that as the bread and wyne are turned into the substaunce of our bodies by fedyng and susteining them, so by the receiuinge of Christes body and bloud we are turned into the nature of them, we are chaun­ged, and altered, and made holy flesh of his flesh, & bones of his bones, as Paul witnesseth. Ephe. 5 And Chrisostom confirmeth the same saying: nos secum in vnam mas­sam reducit, neque id fide solum, Chriso. ho. 83. super Math. sed reipsa corpus suum effecit. We saith this holy & learned father, we ar made one matter w ^t Christ, not by faith alone, and charitie, as he writeth also to the people of Anti­oche, Homl. 63. ad popul. Antioch. Amb. li. 4 sacra. ca. 4 but we are made euen his very bo­dy, reipsa, that is effectually truly and re­ally. And S Ambrose doth write that we are chaunged and turned into Christ, & [Page] Emisenus also doth professe a reall muta­tion, Emisenus of vs into Christ, and yet we are not transubstantiat, and cōuerted, we ar not transformed into him, but our natur and substance remaineth stil, as it did be­fore our receit of the Sacrament, and so doth the nature and substance of the Sa­cramentes. For if the nature of bread & wyne be altered, our nature must be altered in like maner, for asmuch as the fa­thers witnes that we doe eate Christes flesh, reipsa, that is really and effectually, so that our flesh is made holy flesh of his flesh, and we must be as Paul sayth, bo­nes of his bones. Ephe. 5 How ar we flesh of his flesh? not by any mutation, or chaunge of our substaunce, essence, or nature, whiche remayneth styll, but in that we do eate Christes fleshe, and drynke hys bloud by fayth and belefe, by which on­ly Christ is eaten and dronken, and no wayes els. To eat Christes flesh, and to drynke his bloud is to beleue, that the son of God toke on him our humanite, to beleue that his body was nayled vpō the Crosse, and that his bloud was let s [...]th, and shed for the remission of our sinnes, for our transgressions, and offen­ces, [Page] and to repose vs into his fathers sa­uour againe, who was displeased with vs. To teache vs this he calleth hymself the bread of God, that came from hea­uen, to gyue life vnto the world. Iohn. 6 Which chapter is a manifest probation of this matter, that his flesh is neuer eaten, ne­ther in the sacrament, nor without the sacrament, but only by belief. S. Au­gustin, S. Austyn in cap. 6 Ioan. whose excellent learnyng and vertue is well knowen, doth so take all that is spoken there. For he sayth wry­tyng vpon the same Chapter: Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? Why dost thou make ready thy teeth and belly? Vis man ducare Christum? Wilt thou eate Christes flesh and drynke his bloud? and he aun­swereth, Crede & manducasti, that is to say, beleue and I say vnto thee thou hast eaten his fleshe, and dronke his bloud. But here the Papistes reply, An obiect. answered▪ that Chri­stes fleshe is eaten in the Sacrament, and without it, and that without the sa­crament, it is eaten only by fayth. But in the Sacrament it is eaten without fayth of those that eate it vnworthely, as Iudas did.

I answer: Christs flesh, as it is y ^e bread [Page] of life, so always it doth giue life to the spirit, which euil men haue not. Moreo­uer Christes flesh is meat according to owne saying: Caro [...]ea vere est cibus, my flesh is very meat, Iohn. [...] and my bloud is very drinke. What meat and drinke is it? Ve­rely the meat and drinke of the soule, Christes flesh is the meat of the soull. not of the body, the fode and sustenaūce not of the flesh, but of the spirit, as the figurs and sacramentes of bread and wyne, are bodily sustenaunce. For the spirit is not fed or noryshed with corporall fode, Mās soull is not fed with corporal fode. Iohn. 3 for it is written, Quod natum est ex carne, caro est, that which is borne of flesh is fleshe, that is to say, carnall and fleshly. And Christ reproueth such, which vnderstode that he would geue his flesh to be eaten really and corporally, Iohn. 6 and substantially, saying: The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the the spirit, which quickeneth, but ther are some of you that beleue not, as if he had sayd: I toke not my body of the ho­ly virgin to giue it to be eaten really and naturally for the remission of sinne, or to ordein any carnal eating, but I toke my body, and became man to die for synne, and that waies to profit & sanctifite you. Mortua prodest caro, non comesa, the death [Page] of my flesh profiteth and auaileth you, & not the eating therof, whiche profit you must receiue by faith only, and through belief in my passion by the operation of the spirit. My flesh is the bread of life, in that it shalbe beaten, torne, and slayn for you, not in that it shalbe eaten. For that the fruit, the benifit, and whole commo­dite of his comming should be distribu­ted into the world by his his death only, he teacheth vs himself by a similitude saiyng: Iohn. 1 [...]. 1 Cor. 11. Nisi granum frumenti deiectum in ter ram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet, onles the corne, whiche is sowen in the ground, do first die, it doth not encrease, if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. So his body doth profit vs, not in that we eat it really, but in that it was beaten cruelly, scorged & slain for vs, in that it was crucified it is the bread of life, the bread of saluation, redemption, and iustifica­tion. With these sentences Christ pluc­keth vs from carnal eating, and teacheth vs, that his body is eaten by faith only in this life. But I heare one say, whiche deliteth in his owne wyt, and thinketh that he cause further in a mylston beyōd others. If we receiue Christes body by [Page] faith only, what nedeth the sacrament? What boteth it to come to the Lordes table, That both the spirituall and sa­cramentall receit are necessary. saying we may receiue his body without the sacrament, whersoeuer we be, if we beleue vpon him, whether we be in the field, or in the towne, or in our beddes. Truly if thou be honestly and Godly affected, and doest reuoke Chri­stes passion to thy memory, hoping for remission and pardon of thy offence tho­row the sheding of his bloud, & through the death of his body, thou doest eate his body, and drinke his bloud. But if thou regarde not his sacrament, if thou regarde not the promises, which he hath annexed to his table, if thou passe not on his commaundement, which is. Take ye, eate, and drinke ye of this euery one thou doest not beleue, but art carnally mynded and the seruaunt of syn. Wher fayth is, there is also hope, modesty, hu­milite, sobernes, and obedience to Gods preceptes, for the nature of fayth is to iustifie. Now carnall and disobedient mē do not eate Christes body, forasmuch as it is eaten only in spirite and in fayth, that is of spirituall and faythfull men and women, alwayes vnto health and [Page] redemption, and neuer vnto hurt or de­struction. Thou maiest say lykewyse, I wyll not come to the churche to praye, for God heareth me euery where. Thou mayst say likewyse I wyll not be absol­ued of the minister, for God is not boūd to his sacramentes, and he only bloteth out synne without the ceremony of mi­nistration, as he did the synnes of the these, of Mary Magdalene, Luk. 23.7▪ and of o­thers. True it is, God absolueth before thou come to the priest, if thou haue ear­nest remors, and an vnfayned purpose to amend. For he clensed the mam from Leprosy, of whome Mathewe speaketh, he raysed Lazarus from the death of the body. Math. 8 And Paull from the death of the soull, Luk. 5 Gen. 15 Act. 9 before they were with any mini­ster. He receyued also Abraham into his fauour before he was circumcised. Not withstanding we haue commaundemēt to repaire to the minister for absolution, for to them belongeth to loose and to bynde, to blesse and to curse, as appea­reth of y ^e foresayd ensamples. For Paul after that he was lyghtened from aboue was directed vnto Ananias to receyue imposition of handes.

[Page]The Leper also was commaunded to shew himself to the priest for a witnes to the congregation. And Lazarus after his vprysing was deliuered to Christes dis­ciples, which were priestes, to be losed, & stripped of his graue bondes. And the patriark Abraham after that he was iu­stified and accepted into Gods fauour, Rom. 4 Gen. 17 he receiued the sacramēt of circumcisiō, as a seale of the rightuousnes, which is by faith. So albeit Christes body be re­ceiued in faith many tymes without the sacrament, yet thou must come vnto his borde, because of his commaundement, because of his promises, and also to re­ceiue spirituall comfort, and encrease of fayth. Otherwyse thou doest nether eat his body, nor drinke his bloud, nether shalt thou be partaker of the fruites of his passion, whiche appertaine to those only, which by receiuing the memorial of his death, do shewe them selues not to be vnkinde or forgetfull, but obedient & thankefull. It is not ynough to receiue it spiritually, we must receiue it also sacramentally, for both receits be required & commaunded, and Christ him self with his Apostles vsed both for our eruditiō, [Page] ensample, and enstruction. Here a que­stion may be demaunded no lesse neces­sary to be knowen, then hard to dissolue and aunswere. If Christes be eate only by fayth, how is that true, which I rehersed out of Chrisostom that we are trans­formed into Christ, By worth [...] receit we be made chri­stes body really. and made his body non solum per fidem, not only by faith, sed reipsa, but also really, truly, and effectu­ally. You shall vnderstande welbeloued in the Lord, that when we receiue Christ in faith, that this receit ioyneth, and cou­pleth vs effectually & really, vnto Christ. Not only our hearts and mindes, but also our bodies and fleshe be purified, be washed and clensed by this receit, so that Christ our head and Lord, dwelleth and abideth in vs hereby, and norisheth, and fedeth vs continually with faith in his bloud, and with the comfort of his holy spirit, making vs liuely, holy, and very membres of his misticall body. This is the affect and meaning of Chrisostoms wordes, in which he affirmeth, that we ar made the body of Christ really, truly, and affectually. Hetherto I haue decla­red vnto you two matters, what it is to eate Christes body, and that thre simili­tudes [Page] or properties be necessarely required in this sacrament, as I haue proued aswell by euident textes of the Gospell, as with the authoritie of many of the el­der and best learned fathers of Christes church, whose doctrine & interpretatiōs I exhort al men to folow. Of these simi­litudes or properties we may gather y ^t the matter & natures of bread & wyne do remaine, & that Christes words, This is my body, be asmuch to say, as this is a sacrament of my body. For these similitu­des & properties must be in the bread & wyne, in that they be sacramentes, & af­ter the consecration, els they ar no sacra­mentes. For take away the substaunce, matter, & nature of them, and what simi­litude or propertie remayneth ether of nutrition, or of vnitie, or of conuertion? Ergo the assence, nature, matter, and sub­staunce of bread & wyne is not altered, not transformed, not transubstantiat, but do remayne and continewe, as be­fore for these properties and similitudes be in the very substaunce & inward na­ture of bread and wyne. The scholemen and Papistes to defend and mainteyne their transubstantiation, An obiect. which is the bi­shop [Page] of Romes kingdom, & the fortresse, and castell of all superstition & idolatry, they make the accidentes of bread and wyne the sensible, & outward signe, & the visible earthly, & terrenal nature of thys sacrament. Thanswe [...] When thou metest with such a scholemaister, that teacheth this doc­trine, and that the bread is not bread stil▪ aunswer hym thus. Sir there must be thre similitudes and properties in the sa­crament, a similitude of norishyng, a si­militude of vnitie, another of conuersiō. But these thre properties and similitu­des can not be in the outward shewe of accidentes, that is in the color, in the fa­sion, in the breadth, and roundnes, in the quantitie of bread & wyne, for these thin­ges nor no other accidentes do not no­rishe, and fede vs, be not conuerted into vs, nether haue they any propertie or si­militude of any vnitie. But the bread & wyne haue al these similitudes, they doe norysh, they be turned into our nature, and they doe conteyne a similitude of v­nitie. Therfor bread and wine is the out­ward and sensible signe, & the terrenall nature of this sacramēt, and the bread is bread styll, and the wyne is wyne styll▪ [Page] aswell after the consecration, as afore, or els they be no sacramentes, and yet not withstanding they be named the body & bloud of Christ, not because of any mu­tation, chaunge, or alteration of their natures and substaūces, but because of the thre similitudes, & properties aforsaid. Aunswere papisticall teachers on this wyse, and with this reason, and thei shal not be able to gainsay thee. Now let vs enter somwhat further into the text and in into other matters. Christ speaking of the cup saith: Hic est sanguis noui testamē ­ti. This is my bloud of the newe testa­ment or of the new couenaunt. What meane these wordes the new testament? What a testament is and what is a new testament? Verely a testament is as much to say as a legacy, or behest of goodes. So S. Austin defi­neth it: Testimentum est, quo defertur bono rum hereditas, a testament saith S. Austin is a behest & legacy of goods. S. Austyn And there is an old testament, and a new testamēt, as Christ teacheth vs here. The old testament is a bequest, The old testa. what it is. and legacy of tempo­rall goodes, and earthly commodities vnto the sinagoge of the Iewes. The new testament is a bequest of eternall & [Page] heauenly enheritaunce, What the new test. is through Christ vnto all men, both Iewes and Gentils. Or otherwyse. The old testament is the axe set to the roote of the trees, Math. 3 Luk. 3 Rom. 4 the lawe whiche causeth anger that is the prea­ching of the lawe against wicked men, for lex iusto non est posita, the lawe sayth Paul, was not ordeined for good men, 1 Tim. [...] but for euyl, and therfore he defineth it in another place to be ministratiō of death and damnation. 2 Cor. 3 But the new testament is a sermon of Gods mercy and clemēcy of saluation, of redemption, and rightu­ousnes through the effusion of Christes bloud, who calleth all men and women from superstition to true holynes, from shadowes to light, from the letter to the spirit, and from the workes to the flesh, to labour and worke in his vineyard, y ^t is, to honor and glorifie God by wel do­ing in hope of plenteous reward. Wherfore S. Paul vnto the Corinthians, na­meth it the ministration of the spirit and of rightuousnes. Gal. 4 And he compareth the first testamēt to Agar to Abrahās bond­woman, & the secōd he likeneth to Sara his lawfull wyfe and a fre woman, signi­fying hereby that the one doth gendre [Page] vnto bondage, & thother to eternal life. And both testamentes do remaine yet & be effectual at this day. Both testamentes be yet effectu­all. The old testamēt is not disanulled in euil mē, but in good men. For such as liue in sin and ignoraū cie of God, and do measure & iudge holi­nes by outward ceremonies, and suche as do gape gredely after eartly thinges, such as be Iulianites, and without con­science, and do thinke mortal corpo, mor­tal animo, all such belong to the old testa­ment, and be yet vnder the stroke of the axe, vnder the lawe whiche causeth an­ger. And from the beginning of y ^e world good men, as Adam, Enoch, Sem, Noe, Abraham, and Dauid, which in all their ceremonies had an eye to Messias, and beleued in Christ to come, were of y ^• new testament, and vnder grace. Therfore if thou wilt come to Christes table, beware that thou be not of the old testamēt, that is defiled with syn, and iniquitie, & with out repentaunce, and an vniust getter and retainer of worldly cōmodities. For Christ calleth his table the bloud of the new testament. The nature of this table & of Christes bloud is such, that if thou presume to come vnto it vnworthely, w ^t [Page] a bely corrup with naughty humors, y ^t is with synne and iniquitie, it will leade thee vnto thy destruction, as it did Iu­das, not of y ^e nature of it, but through thi great default, who dost not try thy selfe, before thou comest. Yea if we be defiled with sinne, we be no partakers of these deinties, we do not drink y ^e bloud of life. Of these few wordes, which I haue spo­ken in this matter, you may gather both what y ^e testamēts be, & also how they do differ. But percase you are desirous to lerne more plainly, That the old christi­ans did eat Christes flesh as re­ally as we do. what is y ^e meanīg of these words: this is my bloud of y ^e newe testamēt. Verely these words be asmuch to say, as this is a sacramēt of my blud, which was let furth & shed for y ^e remissiō of sins, this is another bloud, & a diuerse from y ^e bloud of the old law. Their bloud was their sacramentes, in which the old christians, which did perteine to y ^e newe lawe, did drinke Christ through fayth. The rok was their bloud, & their paschal lambe, their sacrifices, of goates, oxen, & shepe, to which euil men came aswel as good, but the euil did not drink Christes blud, but only y ^e figure therof, because it is of y ^e new law, & thei were of y ^e old law. [Page] But the old christiās, that is they which in drinking of the rock, & in eating their lambe, and other sacrifices had an eye, & a faith in Christ to come, did eate his bo­dy and dronke his bloud, as truly, as re­ally, & as effectually as we do. For they were of the new testament as wel as we, and therfore they dranke the very spiri­tual bloud of the new testament, in that they beleued vpon the sede promysed. Hereūto Paul beareth witnesse saying: our fathers did all eate of one spirituall meat, 1 Cor. 10 and did all drinke of one spirituall drinke. For they dranke of that spiritual rock, that folowed thē, which rock was Christ. And the Psalmographe saith: Panem [...]e coelo dedit eis. &c. Psal. 77 Psal. 104. That God gaue them bread from heauen, and the bread of aungels, which bread is Christ, as he teacheth vs himself, saying: Amen, amen, dico vohis, non Moises dedit. &c. Verely, verely, I say vnto you, Moises did not geue you bread from heauen, Iohn. 6 but my fa­ther. &c. That he is the bread, whiche his fathher gaue them, he declareth saying. I am y ^e liuing bread, which came downe from heauen. Whereof it is euidēt that the old christians, of whiche Paul spea­keth [Page] in the text afore rehearsed, did from the foundation of the world eat Christes flesh and drinke his bloud as really and effectually as we doe now. But the vn­godly whiche were before his birth dyd nether eat his flesh, nor drinke his boud, as Christ himself teacheth vs, saying: Patres vestri manducauerūt manna & mortui sunt, your fathers saith Christ, Iohn. 6 did eate Manna, and be dead. Note that he saith not our fathers, but your fathers, as if he had said: your fathers, which would not beleue the Prophets, but were persecu­tors of them, and bloud sokers as you be, they did eate manna, that is the sensi­ble sacramēt, & mortui sunt, and yet they were not partakers of the fruites of my death, but died eternally. But the old fa­thers, whiche before my incarnation be­leued in me to come, did not only eate y ^e sensible signe, and outward sacrament of Manna, but also tasted the dainties of my honorable body and bloud, whiche are the bread of life and redemption, & they died not, but do lyue therby. For of such Paul sayth: that they dranke of the spiritual rock. 1 Cor. 10 But because you shal not thynke that I do wrest the scripturs [Page] to proue that the old christians did eate Christes fleshe and drinke his bloud in their sacramentes, hear what the Godly and learned byshop S. Austin saith to this matter. S. Austyn in Ioan. He vpon the sixt chapter of S. Iohns Gospel, speaking of the old fathers eating, & ours, & by occasion, expoū ding there the text of Paul, 1 Cor. 10 affirmeth euidently that which I haue cought, say­ing: Omnes eandem escam spiritalem man­ducauerunt, spiritalem▪ vtique eandem, nam corporalem alteram, quia illi manna, nos a­liud, spiritalem vero quam nos, sed patres nostri, non patres illorum, quibus nos similes sumus, nō quibus illi similes fuerūt. Which wordes in effect be thus muche to saye: They all saith this learned and elder fa­father, speaking of the the old christiās, did eate one spirituall meat. They dyd eate one spirituall meat, not one corpo­rall meat, for Manna was theyr corpo­ral meate, that is, their outward and ter­renall sacrament. But another thynge that is bread and wyne is our corporall meat, and our Sacrament. They dyd eat thesame spirituall meat, that is Chri­stes body, which we do eate, but our fa­thers, as Paul saith, that is such Godly men, as we are like vnto, did eate this [Page] spiruall meat to their health and salua­tion, but your fathers, whiche were op­pressors of the Prophetes, whose wayes you do folow, did not eat Christes body but only the corporall meat of manna, y ^e figure & sacrament therof to their death and condemnation, and therfore of them Christ saith: Mortui sunt, that they died, meaning the second death. This is S. Austins doctrine of the Sacrament not only vpon the forsaid chapter, S. August. li. de aetilt. verae pae. but also in his boke which he writeth De vtilita­te verae poenitentiae agendae, how profita­ble a thing it is to do worthy penaunce, and in his .xix. boke against Faustus.

Here you will say S. Austyn in his preface vpon Psal. 73. doth extoll our sa­cramentes aboue the sacramentes of the old law for diuers causes. Lib. 19. cō tra Faustū cap. 16. If they did re­ceiue Christes body and bloud in their sacraments, how is this true? An obiect. Wherein are ours better? I answer: our sacramēts are better then theirs, not of them selues not of their own nature, Thanswe [...] of their own dignitie, and worthines, but because of the fulnes of time, because the face of Iesus Christ is nowe more clerely discouered and knowen in the new Testament.

[Page]Their sacramentes as S. Austin saith in the aforesaid place, promittebant salua­torem, S. Austyn in Psal. 73 did promise Christ, that is, did sha­dowe, figure, and preache him to come, ours dant salutē, do geue helth by Christ, that is, do shew him to our eies as it wer vpō a scaffold alredy come. Thei wer vn­der the yoke of the law, vnder the letter, vnder many rydles, vnder figures & sha­dowes, as children, but we are vnder grace, vnder the spirit, vnder the veritie, vnder fewer rites, and vnder a more ex­cellēt testamēt, as coheyres with Christ. God spake to them by Patriarkes, and holy Prophetes, and by other meanes, as it pleased him. But now is the tyme, which the Patriarkes desired to see, the acceptable and golden time, & the daies of saluatiō, in which God speaketh both to the Iewes and to the Gentils, by Ie­sus Christ his own word and wisdome, Heb. 1 as Paul declareth, for these causes S. Austin in the aforesaid place, & in other places preferreth our sacraments and ri­tes of the new testament to the old law, not for their owne dignite, for their own excellencie, and worthines, nor thorowe any transubstantiation. Rede his preface [Page] aforesaid, and there thou shalt finde these causes, whiche I haue rehersed, and no other. Notwithstanding the old christi­ans did drinke Chrstes bloud and eate his fleshe, yet they (I say) had another bloud that is a diuers sacrament from vs. They had a paschal lambe, a rocke, y ^e bloud of oxen and of shepe in their sacri­fices, we haue wyne in stede of thē. For seing the testamentes be chaunged, and the priesthod, and lawe is altered, ther­fore the sacramentes also be newed and chaunged. This saith Christ of wyne, This is my bloud of the new testament, that is a new sacrament of my bloud, a certificat of my last wyll and testament, this is a testimony & as it were the brode Seale and patent of my beneuolence, of my clemēcy and fauour towardes you.

And this similitude declareth very ap­tely and fitly, how his body and bloud are present in his holy supper. How Christes body is present. The body and bloud of Iesus Christ be in his holy supper, as thy house with thy gardē and other cōmodities, is in thy lease, whiche thou hast by the Colledge seale of Eatō, or of Wyndsore. Or as thy liuing is in thy patent, which thou hast confirmed & [Page] ratified with the broad seale of Englād. The wordes of Christes supper be as it were a lease, or patent. The sacrament is as it were his broad seale, & his stampe, to certify the weake fayth that God the father doeth loue and fauour thee, and dwell in thee by the grace of his holy spirit for his sake. Thy house and garden be not locally, not really, nor corporally in thy lease, but effectually and sufficiently for thy profit and commoditie. So Chri­stes body and bloud be in bread & wyne. This is no new similitude of mine owne making, for I tolde you that I woulde speake nothing of mine own head, it is the similitude of Gregory Nazianzen an excellent clarke, Grego. nazianzen. and a holy father of the greke church. He .xii.C. years agon wri­ting against the opinion whiche is called now the Donatistes opinion, vsed this similitude, and affirmeth all sacramentes to be seales. S. August. in saluta. ad Rom. S. Austin also in his booke, which he wryteth vpon the salutation of Pauls Epistle to the Romaines, calleth them Sacrosancta signacula, that is holy seales. But thou wilt say, these be hygh matters, and aboue my capacitie tell me how I shall prepare my selfe to receyue this Sacrament. Many comming to [Page] the Lordes table, doe misbehaue them selues, and so doe the lokers on, in that they worship the sacrament with kne­ling, and bowing their bodies, and knocking their brestes, and with eleuation of their handes. Christ is not to be honored in forme of bread and wyne. If it were to be eleuated and shewed vnto the standers by, as it hath bene vsed, Christ would haue eleuated it aboue his head. He deliuered it in to the handes of his Disciples, bydding them to eat it, and not to holde vp their handes, to receiue it and not to worship it, and he deliuered it to them sitting, and not kneling. If ether the bread, or the wine, wer to be heaued vp, or to be reser­ued & hāged vp in a pix, as it hath ben a­bused, if it were to be honored of y ^e recei­uers, or to be kneled vnto of y ^e lokers on, vndoubtedly Christ would haue left vs som cōmaundement so to do, or els haue taught vs by his ensample, or at the lest he wold haue left som promes of reward annexed to this outward reuerence and homage, or some threatning and punishment, for such as wil not worship it. I verely for there is nothing laudable, no­thing ryghtuous, nothynge honest, or acceptable in Gods sight, nothing to be [Page] done for the which he hath not left in his scriptures ether some commaundemēt, or some promes of reward, or some exā ­ple. By his promises, by his thretnings, by his precepts, and through the exam­ples of Godly men & women, we know good from euill, we know what is to be done, & what is to be left vndone, what is to be praised, and what is to be dispraised, what delighteth and pleaseth, and what discontenteth and displeaseth, the diuine maiestie. Gods boke is no vnper fight worke, but a pefect boke cōteining all thinges to be done, the whole duty of a christen man, and sufficient doctrine to enstruct a gods man in al good workes, and to make him perfight, as Paul wyt­nesseth wryting to Timoth. and he must nedes accuse God ether of ignorauncy, [...] Tim. 3 or of folly, or of negligence, which saith that he hath left any thing vntouched & vndeclared, which concerneth a christen mans office, and is nedefull and necessa­ry vnto saluation. All such thynges, be expressed in Gods boke, for in the wry­ting of the Prophetes, he requireth the obseruation of his lawe only concer­ning religion, and he thre [...]eth great plages [Page] and greuous punishmentes, to those that do ad any thing to his word, that is, to those which teache any other doctrine or any worke to be necessary vnto saluation, which is not cōmēded in his word. But nether Christ, nor any of the Pro­phetes, nor his disciples, do geue vs any example to honor the sacramēt, for they kneled not, nether held vp their handes, but sat at the table as the text witnesseth. Nether doth God promise any benefit ether spiritual or temporal to such as ho­nor it, nor he doth not giue vs any pre­cept so to do, nether in the old, nor newe testament. Therfore I say vnto you that it is syn to worship the sacramēt, to hold vp thy handes, or to bowe thy body, and knele to it. For to worship God other­wyse then he hath taught vs in his holy boke, which is the Byble, is mere idola­try. Be not disceiued good people, nor bewitched with superstition and false holines, for the Apostle S. Paul sayth: quic quid non est ex fide, peccatum est, Rom. 14▪ whatsoe­uer is not of faith, whiche commeth as Paul saith also, by hearing Gods word is syn. If thou wilt honor the sacrament, I aske the whether thou do it with faith, [Page] or without faith. If thou do it through faith, shew me som text, som testimony, some authoritie of Gods word, or some example in Gods boke, for fides exauditu faith saith Paul, Rom. 10 cōmeth by hering gods word. If thou worship it without Gods word, without faith, which cometh only by Gods word, hear what Paul saith to the: It is impossible to please God with out faith. Hebr. 11 For to worship god otherwise then he hath taught vs, is heresy, is ido­latry, is disworship & dishonor of the di­uine maiestie. Socrates. Socrates a Heithen, & no christen man, & yet a learned & a great famous clerk, he in his life time helde this assertion, that euery God is to be hono­red & worshiped after such maner, & with such ceremonies & rites, as he himself teacheth, & commaundeth. He did attribute more wisdome & more authorite to false gods, thē we do to the God of heauen & earth, who is the fountain of al wisdom, power, & authorite. It is to be feared y ^t he at the last day shal arise to the condemp­nation of many, whiche professe Christ.

An obiect. S. August. in Psa. 98But here some reply that S. Austin writing vpon these wordes. Adorate sca­bellum pedum eius, worship the fotestole [Page] of my fete, that he maketh Christes flesh which is earth, y ^e fotestole of Gods fete, and that he affirmeth & proueth of this text, that Christes flesh is to be honored. For his wordes be: Nemo illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adorauerit. Et non so­lum non peccatur adorando, verum peccatur non adorando, that is to say: no man may eate that flesh, before he first do honor it. and it is not only sinne to honor it, but it is syn not to honor it. I doe not deny, y ^• Christes flesh is to be honored & worshi­ped. God forbid, Thanswe [...] for it is promoted to y ^e feloship of y ^e deitie, & ioyned in vnitie of person to y ^• diuine nature. But I denie y ^t the sacramēt is to be worshiped, y ^e bread & wine ar not to be honored, for thei ar not his flesh really & corporally, but a certificat, a seale, a patent, or lease therof, as I haue proued. How is Christs flesh to be honored? How Christes flesh is to be honored. Verely Christes flesh is to be honored in heauē, not in y ^e form of bread & wine, in glory, & at y ^e righthād of God y ^e father, not in y ^e sacramēt. It is honored by cōming to his supper, & by obeying his precept, take, eat, & drink of this al, bi receiuing of y ^e sacramēt, not w ^t eleuatiō of hāds to bread & wine, or w ^t knocking, or with [Page] kneling before bread & wyne. His bloud and body are honored, euen as they are dronke and eaten, that is by faith in thē, and by geuing of thankes to him for his dishonor and death, and by confessing hym to be without a father very natural man of his mother after y ^e fulnes of time for our redemption, and very God be­gotten by his father without a mother before all tyme. So the wyse men which came from the east partes by the leading of a star, worshipped hym at his birth, & are therfore commended, and preserued from kyng Herodes crueltie. They kneled downe saith the text, Psal. 71 Math. 2 and worshiped hym, and opened their treasures, and of­fered giftes, gold, frankynsence, & mirre. By gold they confessed him to be a king by frankynsence they acknowledge him to be God, for all nations do offer that only to such, which thei take to be gods, and by myr, with which suche as dye be annointed, they cōfessed him to be a mortall and natural man. So do thou knele to Christ, and worship his body & bloud not in the east partes, but in the heauen­ly Ierusalem, and at the trone of Gods maiestie, not in the sacrament, but in heauen, [Page] where he is now at the right hande of his father. Offer vnto him their fran­kynsence and myr, that is, confesse hym to be very God, and very naturall man▪ confesse him frō the bottom of thy heart to be thy Lord and thy sauiour, and ren­der vnto him many thankes & due pray­ses for humbling himself to mās nature for thy redemption and honor. This is the true and right honor, with which he would haue his body worshiped. Hold vp thy handes to Christes body in hea­uen and spare not, knele to it, knock on thy breast. If thou wilt knele and wor­ship it in the sacrament, thou doest lyke as if the aforesaid wysemen had in the east partes worshiped him in y ^e star, had kneled to him in the star, & offered their giftes to the same, which had bene idola­try, and so is this.

Thou must go to Bethleem that is to the house of spiritual bread, which bread is Christ in the glory of God the father, and there thou must worship his body, not in the forme of bread and wyne: For Bethleem is an Hebrue worde, Bethleem the house of bread. and in Latin and English it is asmuch to say, as [...]omus panis, y ^e house of bread. You haue [Page] heard one way, how Christes body may be honored. Chriso. ho. de sument. indigne, diuina m [...]st. Chrisostom a learned and a holy father of Christes churche teacheth vs another way in a certayne Homily, which he writeth to the people of Antio­che, De sumentibus indigne diuina est & sancta misteria, of such which vnworthe­ly and vnreuerently presume to come to Gods holy misteries. He there speaking of the worshiping of Christes body, doth not teache them to knele, or to holde vp their handes to the sacramēt, but a clene other way. Because you shal not thinke this to be newe doctrine, whiche is the faith and doctrine of all the elder fathers I wyll reherse vnto you his wordes. Vis christi corpus honorare? wilt thou honor Christes body saith Chrisostom? and he aunwereth, Ne nudum cum despicias. &c. then clothe him and haue pitie on hym, when thou seest him naked. And he ad­deth a reason: Qui nam (que) dixit, hoc est cor­pus meum, & verbo factum confirmauit, idē dixit, Math. 25 esuriētem me vidistis, & non pauistis me, & quod non fecistis vni ex his minimis, neque mihi fecistis, that is to saye, for he that said this is my body, and performed his word, said also, you sawe me hongry [Page] and fed me not, & that whiche you haue not done to one of these litle ones, you haue not done to me. He procedeth fur­ther, and bringeth in Peter against those which do worship God after their owne fantasies, saying: Discamus itaque Philo­sophari, & christum prout ipse vult vene­rari: Let vs learne this Philosophy saith Chrisostome, that is to honor Christ, as he hath willed vs to honor him. For that honor is most acceptable to him, whiche is honorable, or worshipfull, whiche he doth esteme, and not which we doe ima­gin. For Peter thought no lesse, but that he honored Christ, when he forbad hym to wash his fete, Iohn. 1▪ notwithstanding he did not honour hym herein, but rather did dishonour and disworshyp hym. So doe thou worship and honour him with pi­tie & liberalitie towardes the pore. These be the wordes of Chrisostome, in his ho­mily against such as come vnworthely to Gods misteries, in which he teacheth vs, that to honour Christes body, is to glorifie hym by doyng of good workes. For this cause he toke vpon hym his body and became a naturall man of wo­mans seede, as it is writtten.

[Page]God hath raysed vp a horne of health vnto vs in the house, that is, of the stock and kindred of his seruaunt Dauid, and why? It foloweth: that we being deliue­red out of the handes of our ennemies, Luk. [...] should serue and worship hym without fear all the daies of our lyfe in holines & rightuousnes before hym. I haue decla­red two wayes how Christes body and bloud are to be worshiped. One way is by faith in his bloud, by geuing thankes to him for his incarnation and cōming, and by offring him frankynsence & myr, that is, by cōfessing him to be very God, and very naturall man. Another way to honor it, is to serue hym in holines and rightuousnes, and to exercise in earth y ^• workes of mercy towardes the pore.

The elder fathers vsed no other wor­ship toward Christes body before Honorius the third byshop of Rome. Honorius the thyrd. 1226. lib▪ 2 Decret. He first commaūded bread and wyne to be wor­shiped with eleuation of handes. Anno post Christum. 1226. lib. 2. Decret. titul. de celebra. missarum. For the space of a thou­sand yeares there was no such custome.

The papistes obiect here that the bo­dy of Christ is present vnder the forme [Page] of bread to be honored. An obiect. If (saith the Pa­pistes) a man say vnto thee this is my right hand, or this is a stone, thou bele­uest him. God saith this is my body, & not this is a figure of my body, or this doth signifie my body, and he that ea­teth my flesh hath life, not he that eateth a figure of my flesh, and we doe not be­leue him, but do make of sugar, salt, and of chese, chalke. I aunswer: Christ doth not say, this is trasformed, Thanswer this is turned this is transubstantiat into my body, nether that the nature, and substaunce of wine doth discontinue, or is excluded, as you wold force the wordes. Here resteth all the matter, how this word ( est) is to be vnderstand, whiche is neuer taken in that sence, in whiche they would take it here. Throughout the Byble no transubstantiation is expressed by this word, nor by no other phrase, This is y ^e doctrine of the elder fathers and scripturs. the scripturs speake of no such mutatiō. But the other phrase (this is) for, this is a figure, is commen and dashed euery where in the scripturs. The rock saith Paul was Christ, that is a figure of Christ. 1 Cor. 10 1 Cor. 5 Act. 4 Math. 2 [...] 1 Pet. 2 He nameth him also y ^e easterlambe, whiche was but a figure of hym. He is called a stone, the worde of [Page] God is named seed, Ephe. 2 Mark. 4. Luk. 8 Apoc. 19. Ephe. 6 Math. 16 Luk. 11 Psal. 118. Pro. 9 Psal. 60 Pro. 18 Iohn. 5 Math. 3 a swerd, a kay, a lanterne, God is called our banner, our ca­stell, Ihon the christiner is named a bur­ning candell, and he nameth the lawe se­curim an axe, which is set at the rote of the trees, which al be figuratiue speches. And the elder fathers do so expound this text, they confesse and teache Christe to speake here figuratiuely. Christ saeith: Tertullian who was but .210. yeare after Christ, and .13. hundred yeares agone, he lib. 4. against Marcion, who said that Christ had no natural body, Tertul. li. but only a­parant flesh and a fantasticall body saith thus: 4. cont. Marrc. Christ takyng bread and dealyng it to his disciples, made it his body say­ing: This is my body, that is a figure of my body. And of these wordes he con­triueth an argument against Marcian, in this wyse: But the bread can not be a figure of it, if Christ had no true body. For a vayne thyng, or fantasy can take no figure. Lo how this auncient father expounded these wordes.

S. August. prefa. sup. psalm. 3.S. Austin also taketh Christes wor­des in lyke maner, saying thus in hys preface vpon the third Psalme. He ad­mitted Iudas vnto the maundy, wherin [Page] he deliuered to his Disciples the figure of his body and bloud.

And Ambrose in his boke of Sacra­mentes speaking of the cup, Ambro. de sacram. sayth that we drynke there Similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis, the similitude of his precious bloud. But though they say that Chri­stes aforesayd wordes be a figuratiue speache, they doe not teache bread and wyne to be bare and naked metaphors, but holy Sacramentes hauyng many promyses annexed vnto them, for which promises the visible signes be named Christes body and bloud, and not for any mutation of their natures, or sub­staunces. Therfore albeit thou hast bene led and made to beleue in tymes past, that this doctrine is newe learnyng, yet thynke not so hereafter.

It is the doctrine of Christ, the fayth of y ^e old fathers, the cōfession of innume­rable martirs, which haue ratified it w ^t the losse of their liues in hope of plentu­ous reward hereafter in y ^e kingdome of god. That we may haue grace to beleue y ^e truth cōcerning this holy sacramēt, to vse it aright, & to refuse all false doctrine, & that these wordes, which I haue spokē [Page] in your outward eares, may sinke into your heartes & mindes, let vs call on the name of Christ (who ordeined this sacra­ment) with inuocation and praier.

HEtherto (christē hearers) I haue furnished Christs supper with two sermōs, as it were with two dis­shes. Ther remaineth yet apercel vnspokē of which now I entend to finish. I haue declared the meaning, theffect, & the vnderstāding of these wordes of Christ our lord: Hoc est corpus meum. &c. This is my body, & this is my bloud of the new testament. And I haue shewed aswel out of the scri­pturs, as also by the authoritie of the el­der and learned fathers of gods church, that they are thus much to say: This is a sacrament of my body, & bloud, this is a certificat of my fauor, a testimony, & as it wer a broad seal and patent, that God my father is recōciled vnto you, that he doth embrace, that he doth loue you, and dwel in you by the grace of his holy spi­rit, That chris [...]s flesh is [...] vnto [...]amation. for theffusion of my bloud, & death of my body. I tolde you also what it is to eate Christes body, that it is not eatē re­ally or corporally, for asmuch as it is the [Page] meat and sustenaunce not of our bodies and fleshe, but of our spirit and inward man, which are not fed or norished with any corporal nature, or bodely substāce. Or to expresse this thing more plainly: Christes flesh is panis vitae, the bread of life, in that it was beaten, not in that it is eaten. It is the bread of saluatiō, of redē ­tion, of sanctificatō, of rightuousnes, & of iustification, in y ^t it was cruelly scouged, and slayne for vs, and not through any corporall, any reall, or naturall receit. As he teacheth vs hymselfe, Iohn. vi. re­prouing those, whiche vnderstode that he would geue his body to be really and substancially eaten, saying: Caro non prodest quicunque. &c. The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickeneth, that is to say the spirituall receit and ea­ting doeth profite and sanctify you, the bodely and corporall eatyng is vnpro­fitable.

To eate Christes fleshe and to drinke his bloud, is to beleue that the sonne of God concerning his humanitie & fleshe was nailed on the crosse, & that his bloud was let furth for y ^e expiatiō of our sins & [Page] for our redemption and rightuousnes, & to repose vs againe into Gods fauour. And this spirituall receit, whiche is by faith, is so effectuall, and of so mighty, & so vehement an operation, that as ma­trimony maketh man and wife one flesh according as it is written: Gen. 2 Math. 19 Erunt duo in carne vna: So it ioyneth vs vnto Christ re ipsa, that is really, truly, and effectual­ly, making vs flesh of his flesh, & bones of his bones, as Paul witnesseth. That is liuely, holy, and very members of his mistical body. Ephe. 5 For Paul doth not speak there only of natural flesh, but also of ho­ly flesh and cleane from syn, whiche shall arise and be immortall, not by the course of nature, nor by Adam, but through Christ, who doth knit and couple and in corporat his chosen to himself by his sa­cramentes and faith, so that they may truly thenceforth say with Paul, Viuo iam, non ego, sed viuit in me Christus: I li­ue, Gal. 2 yet now not I, but Christ liueth in me. Gods holy word knoweth no other receit of Christes very body, and natu­rall flesh, nether in the Sacrament, nor without it.

Nether any of y ^e elder fathers of chri­stes [Page] church, doe acknowledge or teache any other eating. Because it is to long a matter to alledge them all, I wyll alled­ge two or thre of the chief and principall and best learned, of which y ^e aduersaries, of the truth do brag not a litle. S. Austyn in euang. Ioan. S. Austin a famous Godly and learned father of Christes church, wryting vpō S. Iohns gospel, affirmeth this eating most plain­saying: Credere in eū hoc est māducare pa­nē vinū. &c. To beleue vpō Christ saith this holi father, is to eat the bread of life. And again: qui credit manducat, & inuisi­biliter signa. He that beleueth, eateth, and is fed inuisibly. An obiect. Here percase thou wylt say: as Christ spiritually, and worthely is receiued by faith of good mē vnto sal­uation, so euil men doe in the sacrament eate his flesh vnworthely and without faith and vnto condemnation. By what testimony of the scripture can this be proued, Thanswer that Christes flesh is eaten vnwor­thely and vnto dampnation? Paul sayth quicunque manducauerit panem hunc. &c. 1 Cor. 11 He that eateth of this bread, & drinketh of this cup of the Lorde vnworthely. He doth not say, he that eateth Christes bo­dy vnworthely, or drinketh his bloud [Page] vnworthely, which alwaies be receiued to sanctification, to life, & saluation, but he that eateth this bread, that is not common bread, not daily bread, but sacramē tal bread, that is ment by the word (this) Throughout the scriptures this worde (vnworthely) is neuer ioined with Chri­stes body, neuer with his bloud, for they do sanctifie their receiuers. S. Austin also denieth this destinction Sermone circa sacra feria paschoe, S. August. serm. circa sacra feria paschal. wryting thus: Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio non manducat eius carnem, nec bibit sanguinem, etiam si tante rei sacramentum ad iudicium sibi manducet & bibit: That is to say, he that abideth not in Christ, and in whome Christ abi­deth not, without doubt he eateth not Christes fleshe, nor drynketh not his bloud, although he eate and drynke the sacrament of so great a thyng vnto his dampnation. This holy father, doth tea­che and confesse here, thre things, which thynges he teacheth lykewyse in many other places of his bokes. One is that euell men do not eate Christes flesh, for it is the bread of lyfe, and ryghtuousnes. Another is that they doe eate the sacra­ment [Page] and the only figure therof.

Thirdly that they eate the saide on­ly sacrament and the only figure vnto condemnation, making them selues as Paul saith gilte of Christes body and bloud, whiche they do not receiue, 1 Cor. 1 [...] be­cause they wyll not beleue.

These thre most true and Godly les­sons of this elder and learned father be a manifest deniall of the transubstantia­tion, and of all corporall, reall, and natu­rall receit. Let vs learne hereof that there is a difference betwene Christes honorable body and bloud, and the visible sacrament and figure therof, such a diuersitie and difference, as is betwene thy house, and thy seale and lease therof. S. Ambro. de sacram. S. Am­brose also his maister and the great clerk prosper doe teache vs the very same doctrine. For Ambrose in his boke whiche he wryteth of Sacramentes sayth: Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnem eius. &c. He that discordeth from Christ, doth not eate his fleshe, nor drynke his bloud, although he receiue the Sacra­ment of so great a thyng vnto his dam­nation and destruction.

And Prosper in his boke of sentences, Prosp. lib. senten. [Page] saieth of suche vnworthy receiuers, that though euery day indifferently they doe receiue, that they eat the sacrament and figure of so great a thing vnto the condē nation of their presumption, and not Christes body. Beda sup. 1 Corint. 11 Bede also hath the very same wordes. And the famous and lear­ned father S. Hierō, doth confirme this to be a true doctrine, S. Hierom super Esa. writing vpō the ·66 Chapter of the Prophet Esay, saying: Dum non sunt sancti corpore & spiritu, nec comedunt carnem Iesu, nec bibunt sanguinē eius, as long saith this elder and Godly father of Christes church, as long as thei be not holy and cleane in body and in spirit, they do not eate the flesh of Iesu, nor tast of his bloud. Of these it is euidēt that as the sensible sacrament is receiued vnworthely of vngodly men vnto con­demnation, so the body of Christ, which is the bread of life, is only receiued wor­thely, and of good men, always vnto saluation, expiation, and rightuousnes, and of no man vnto destruction, death, & dā ­nation, s. Austin. sermo. de sacr. fer. pasc. whosoeuer is partaker of it: as S. Austin saith in his sermon of the holy feast of passeouer. Therfore if we say y ^t vngodly men do eate Christes flesh, we [Page] deny the doctrine of al the elder fathers, we deny Christ to be the bread of life, we deny him to be our rightuousnes, our sauing health, our expiatiō, our raunsome, our sanctification, and holines, who will not faile to deny vs likewyse before his father, Luk. 12 onles we renounce this diuelysh errour. Notwithstanding both S. Au­stin, and other of the fathers, do affirme otherwhiles, that Iudas and other vn­godly persons did eate Christes body, meaning by Christes body the Sacra­ment therof, and geuing the name of the thing to the figure and signe. For sacra­mentes be called by the very names of those thinges, whiche they doe represent and signifie and wherof they are Sacra­mentes, Augustin. Epist. 23 as both S. Austin teacheth in his Epistle, whiche he writeth to Boni­face, and also the holy martir & famous clerke S. Ciprian in a sermon, which he maket de chrismate, of anointinting. Cipria. ser. de chrism. For this cause Christes flesh hath two signi­fications both in the scripturs and elder fathers. For as properly, Christes flesh hath two signi­fications. and in his na­turall and chefe acception, is that sub­staunce, and humanitie, which was born of the virgin Mary and suffered on the [Page] crosse for the expiation of our synnes, so sometyme it is token also for sacramen­tall bread, and wyne. In which signifi­cation when the elder father doe affirme vngodly men to eate Christes flesh, the papistes wold make vs to beleue y ^t they teache Christes flesh, which is the bread of life, to be eaten vnworthely vnto damnation, not vnderstanding the doctors, and yet great braggers of knowledge & learning, or rather deprauing and cor­rupting the doctors to mainteine their transubstantiation, which is the castel of all supersticion and Popery, leadyng vs vnder the names of fathers and antiqui­tie, from our father, which is in heauen, vnto whom that I may declare the rem­naunt of Christes supper, to your edify­ing and enstructiō, which be come toge­ther to serue God in praier & hearing his word, let vs make hūble supplicatiō. &c.

It foloweth in the text: I wil not drink henceforth of this fruite of the vine, vntyll that day when I shall drynke it newe with you in my fathers kyngdom.

Christ our maister (welbeloued in god) nameth here the sacramentall wyne the frute of the vyne & that after the conse­cration. [Page] If the nature and substaunce of wine wer disanulled, & turned into Chri­stes flesh, he wold not so name it, for chri­stes flesh is the frute of Mary the frute of Dauid, & others, not y ^e fruite of y ^e vine. And as the wyne is the fruit of the vine, Luk. 1 Psal. 131 [...] Act. 2 and therfore it is not altered into the substaunce of Christes body, whiche is the fruit of those fathers, frō which Math. 1 & Luk. 3. do fetch his stok & generatiō, so vndoubtly the sacramental bread is the fruit of wheat after the consecration, & in that it is a sacrament of Christes honorable flesh. For vnto this fruit he himselfe compareth & likeneth his body saying: nisi granū frumenti. &c. Onles the corne which is sowen in the groūd do first die, it doth not encrease. If it die, Iohn. 12 it bringeth furth much fruit. And theuangelistes do testifie w ^t one voice, y ^t Christ both toke & gaue, & also that he brake this fruit to his disciples. What toke he? bread. what ga­ue he to his disciples? thesame y ^t he toke. And what did he breake? Verely euen y ^t, which he gaue them. Ergo he gaue them not his reall body, and naturall fleshe, which was borne of the blessed virgyn, for though he died for vs concernynge his body, yet the sayd body was not thē [Page] broken, when he ordeined his holy sup­per. Moreouer almighty God many years before in the mistery of the easter lambe forbad the breaking therof by the mouth of his holy Prophet Moises saying: Exod. 12 Num. 9 Iohn. 19 os non comminueti [...] ex eo, ye shall not breake a bone of it, whiche wordes the Euāgelist S. Iohn doth refer to Christs body. The primatiue churche folowed this example of their high bishop in breaking the sacramental bread as Paul witnesseth, Panis quem frangimus. &c. is not the bread which we breake saith Paul a communion or partaking of Christes body▪ 1 Cor. 10 And the vniuersal church through out all Realmes and dominions from y ^e Apostles tyme haue religiously obser­ued this ceremony. Seing then the sacramentall bread that is after that it is a sa­crament, must be broken to be distribu­ted to such as come to Gods table, how is it dayly turned into the substaunce of Christes honorable body, which now is impassible, and in eternall glory? Howe can it be his real and natural flesh, which was not then broken, when he brake the the bread? It was brokē afterward whē his handes were nayled to the crosse, & [Page] when his bloud by the cruel Iewes was let furth out of his side with a spear for our redemptiō, in remēbraunce of which benefit the sacrament of bread is broken cōtinually without any alteratiō chaūge or transmutation of his nature. For the Apostle S. Paul speaking hereof doeth always name it bread as in the aforsayd text: Is not y ^e bread which we breake. &c. And againe: we are all one lofe and one body in asmuch as we all are partakers of one bread, and as often as ye shal eate this bread. &c. and whosoeuer shall eat of this bread vnworthely, and againe, 1 Cor. 10 1 Cor. 11 let euery man examin him selfe, and so let hym eate of this bread. Lo S. Paul na­meth the on part of this sacramēt bread, whersoeuer he maketh mention therof, and Christ our Maister, whome we are commaundeth to heare, nameth the o­ther part the fruite of the vine, by their names teaching vs that the matter the ensence and the substaūce both of bread and wine, are not transformed, are not transubstātiat into the substaunce of his flesh and bloud, but do remaine and con­tinue, as well after the consecration, as before, or els they can be no sacraments, [Page] as I proued in my secōd lesson. Nowith­standing Christ in his supper affirmeth bread and wyne to be his body & bloud, and calleth his body. Granum frumenti, a wheat corne: and his bloud the fruit of the vine. For those thre properties and similitudes whiche I haue declared, Iohn. 12 and also for another similitude, whiche nowe he teacheth vs here, that is because his body and bloud are the fruite of Mary, the fruit of Dauid, the fruit of Abraham and of others, as it is written, Ex quibus Christus est secundum carnem, Rom. 8 Christ is of the fathers touching his flesh: Euen as the sacramental bread and wyne are the fruit of wheat and the fruit of the vine. For this cause and such other he calleth his body Granum frumenti, a wheate corne, and affirmeth the signes to be his fleshe and bloud, not for any mutation of their substaunces.

For this similitude and such other do chaunge the names of bread and wyne, but not their natures, and essence into Christes nature, for Christes nature is the fruite of many Patriarkes, and di­uers kynges, Act. 2 Psal. 131. not the fruite of the vine, nether yet the fruit of wheate.

[Page]But the Papistes reply here, that Paul calleth the sacrament bread so ma­ny tymes, An obiect. and that Christ nameth the wyne the fruite of the vine, not of that it is, but of that it was, not that they are styll bread and wyne after the consecra­tion, but because they weere so before. And they defend this their distinction & interpretation with two stronge argu­mentes, & inuincible, as they do thinke. Their first argument is gathered of the wordes of Christ immediatly folowing in that he sayth that he wyll drynke of this fruite of the vyne in the kyngdome of his father, with his disciples.

We shalbe fed (sayth the Papist) in Gods kyngdome whiche is the glory of the lyfe to come with this fruite of the vyne, but we shall not be fed there, with the corruptible fode and naturs of bread and wyne. Ergo their natures do not re­mayne and continue, and wyne is cal­led the fruite of the vyne and bread Gra­num frumenti, a wheat corne, or the frute of wheat, of that it was, not of that it is. I answer, Thanswer his fathers kingdom in which Christ saith that he wil drinke new wine [Page] with his disciples, in the aforesaid text, is not the glory of the life to come, but that tyme whiche folowed immediatly his resurrection, in which not for any necessitie or hunger as S. Austin saith epi. xlix▪ which he writeth to one Deogratias, S. Austyn Epist. 4.9. but for a trial and probation that he was verely risen concerning his humanitie, he did both eate and drinke with his dis­ciples, as Peter witnesseth in his sermō to Cornelius. Then he dranke the fruite of the vyne a new with them, Luk. 24 Act. 10 that is af­ter a straunge and a newe sort, hauyng not passible and mortall, but impassi­ble and immortall flesh, and such as ne­ded no bodely foode. Chrisost. in Math. Chrisostom a learned and Godly byshop of Christes church doth so vnderstand these wordes of Christ. For vpō Mathew he writeth thus expounding this very text, meminit iam resurrectionis ac regnū patris eam ap­pellat, that is, Christ remembreth nowe his resurrection, calling it his fathers kingdom. Nether is it against reason or the phrase of the scriptures to take gods kingdom in this signification, which be­gan chiefly to florishe immediatly after Christes death as appeareth, [...]ct. 2 and as he [Page] him self taught his disciples that it shuld so do, saying: Cū exaltatis fuero, omnia tra ham ad meipsum, when I shalbe lifted vp I will drawe al thinges to my selfe. For God doth not reigne only in heauē, but also in this life, as it is wryten: Regnum dei intra vos est, Luk. 17 the kingdome of God is within you. Christ speaking of drinking new wyne in his fathers kingdom, meaneth this raigne, wherby God the father reigned in the hartes of the faithfull af­ter his sonnes resurrection by the grace of his almighty spirit, with many visible giftes and signes. Therfore it can not be proued of these wordes, that the natures of bread and wyne are disanulled.

Their second reason wherwith they would proue the sacramentes to be na­med bread and wyne, An other obiection. in that they were so before, and not in that they be so still, is framed and made of many like phra­ses in the scriptures. When the serpent, which was made of Aarons rod deuou­red the serpentes, which the enchaūters of Pharao made of their rods, the texte faith, Exod. 7 that Aarons rod did eate vp theyr roddes (calling thē roddes) because they were so before. So the scriptures many [Page] tymes do name man earth, Gen. 3 Eccle. 10 forsomuche as he was earth touching his body be­fore his creation. They doe call wyne water, whiche was made of water as we reade.

After this sort saith y ^t Papistes, Christ nameth his bloud wyne, Iohn. 2 and the fruit of the vyne, and his body bread, and Gra­num frumenti, a wheat corne, or the fruit of wheat. Thanswer Though Aarons rod were turned into a Serpente, yet this mutation was no transubstantiation, neither is earth transubstantiat into man, nor wa­ter into wine.

The scriptures make relation of ma­ny wonders, and myracles in both testamentes, but let them shewe any tran­substantiation in any of Gods myra­cles from the begynnyng of the worlde, and I wyll be of their opinion. If they can not, it is against reason that they should abuse Gods myracles to proue their transubstantiatiō, and to mainteyn their own dreames and inuentions.

Moreouer the scriptures doe mani­festly expresse a mutation in the afore­sayd myracles. They testifie with plaine wordes, that the rods turned to Ser­pentes, [Page] that man was formed and made of the earth, and that water was made wyne, but they do not testifie that bread and wyne are turned into Christes reall body and bloud, neither doe they saye that Christes body and bloud was made of them, but rather deny it. For Paull sayth that God sent his son, Factum ex muliere, made of a woman, Gal. 4. teachyng vs with manifest wordes, that touchynge fleshe and bloud he is womans seede, that is the fruit of Mary, not the fruite of the vyne.

But because both they and we haue scriptures, and it must nedes be that one of vs doth wrest and depraue them, let vs make the elder Fathers of Christes Church as it were Iudges and Arbiters whether the substaunces of bread and wyne, remayne or not, and whiche of vs do opē them with the piklok, and which with the key, y ^t is which of vs do expoūd them a right. Ireneus byshop of Lions, who florished in Christes church aboue xiiii. C. yeares agone, Irenius cō tra Valen. wryting against y ^e Valentinians, saith thus touching this matter, Panis terrenus accepta vocatione a verbo dei nō āplius. &c. the terrenal bread [Page] after the consecration is no longer com­mon bread, but a sacrament, whiche is made of two things, that is of a heauēly nature, and of a terrenall nature. The heauenly nature, of which he speaketh, is vndoubtedly Christes body & bloud, now in glory at the right hand of God the father. The terrenall nature is that thing, whiche before he named terrenall bread, which he denieth to be any longer bread, but he doth not teache the nature therof to discontinue, neither once drea­me of transubstantiation. For these two thinges be required in this mistery not before the consecration, but afterwarde, in that it is a sacrament, for they make it a sacrament. But they say that this terrenall nature is not y ^e substance of bread, An obiect. but the outward shew of accidētes. How doe you proue this interpretacion to be true? Thanswer Nay saith the Papist, how can you improue this interpretation? Because it is against the doctrine of those Godly & learned fathers, which succeded Ireneus from time to tyme. For Terrullian not fifty yeares after Irenius in his first boke against Marcion, Tert. [...]. cont. Mar. speaking of this mistery, affirmeth playnly and euidētly, that [Page] the substaunce of bread remaineth, say­ing: Deus panem creaturam suam non ab­iecit. &c. That is, God did not cast away nor disanull bread his creature, but with it representeth vnto his body, onles we wyl condemne Tertullian as an heretik in this matter, and set Ireneus and hym at discord in the sacrament, whiche yet no mā neuer layd to their charges, these wordes do force and compell vs to take the terrenall part of this sacrament for y ^e very substaunce of bread and wyne, and not for their accidentes. Moreouer Ori­gen who in the same age with Tertulliā was a famous preacher among the Alix­andrians, Origen. in Mat. ca. 15 wryting vpon S. Mathewes Gospell, doeth confirme this doctrine saying: Panis sanctificatus iuxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit, & in se­cessum eijcitur, that is to say, the sacra­mental bread touching his matter goeth into the belly, & is cast furth from thence againe. Ergo the essence and substaunce therof is not disanulled.

Ciprian also was in their times, and taught the same doctrine at Carthage, Ciprian. Epist. 3. lib. 2. which the famous clerke Origen prea­ched at Alixandria. For he wryting to [Page] one Coecilius affirmeth sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, that Chri­stes bloud is not offered, (that is let furth for our redemption) if there be no wyne in the chalice. Ergo suche as doe teache wyne not to remayne, but to be disanulled by transubstantiation by his doctrine doe deny that Christ hath suf­fered for vs.

Also in his Sermon which he writeth of the Lords supper, Idē de coe­ [...]a domini shewing how bread and wyne, are chaunged into Christes body and bloud, he boroweth a simili­tude of his incarnation, teaching vs that as Christ now is both God and man, & partaker of two natures, God in that he saith, my father and I are one, and man in that he saith, my father is greater then I, that euen so there be two natures in the holy sacrament, as Irenius taught before his time. Thus you se that these four fathers, whiche I haue rehearsed, taught in diuers coūtries almost in one tyme with one voice and assent, the mat­ter and substaunces of bread and wyne, not to discontinue after the consecratiō, but to remaine & abide, whiche doctrine many yeares hath bene & is yet of some [Page] infamed as heretical, but of those which vnderstande nether Gods holy worde, nether y ^e elder fathers, because the vaile of couetousnes and of honor of whiche Paull speaketh, hangeth before theire hartes, 2 Corin. 3. euen as it did before the hartes of the Iewes, whiche sought in Christe not remission of their sinnes, but world­ly ryches and felicitie. If these fathers taught a truthe as it cannot be denied, how dare ye say, that the Sacrament is named bread and wyne not of that, it is, but of that it was so before. Where is your distinction and refuge? Where is your transubstantiation? how dare you name this new lerning?

Be not disceiued good people with false and ignoraunt teachers which opē Gods word with a piklok, & not with y ^e right key, submit your iudgementes to the doctrine of the elder fathers, and to y ^e scriptures, which are y ^e key & the touch­stone to trie good doctrine from euyll. But for a more manifest probation, that this doctrine was taught continually from tyme to tyme almost fiue hundred yeares after Christ, I wyll reherse vnto you y ^e doctrine of some of those fathers, [Page] which were after Ciprians time S. Am­brose byshop of Myllaine, saith thus of bread and wine in this mistery: Ambro. li. 4. de sa­cra. cap. 4 Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone domini Iesu. &c. That is, if Christes word be of so great power to cause those things to be which were not, how much more is the same a­ble to continue thinges, & yet to chaunge them into some other thing. This holy father who florished in vertue and lear­ning thre hundred and .xxxix. yeares af­ter Christ teacheth vs here two thinges. First that the signes do remaine and cō ­tinue, that they were. Secondly that thei are chaunged into another thing, forso­much as of cōmon bread and wyne they ar made a sacramēt of Christes honora­ble body and bloud. Also Theodoret a famous and notable learned man, Theodoret dialog. 1 and by­shop of Cyrus, who was wrongly infa­med of malicious tonges, that he was a Nestorian, taught the same doctrine not many yeares before Ambrose time. He in his first dialogue, which he writeth a­gainst those that denyed the veritie of Christes body teacheth with most eui­dent wordes the substaunces of bread, & wyne, to continue saying: symbola appel­latione [Page] corporis & sanguinis sui honorauit, non equidem naturam ipsam transumtans, sed adijciens gratiam naturae. Christ (saith this Godly father) gaue the honorable names of his body and bloud to the sig­nes of bread and wyne, not chaunging their natures, but ioyning grace with their natures.

In his second dialogue also he sayth: Neque enim post sanctificationem mistica simbola illa natura sua propria egrediuntur, Dialog. 2. sed manent in priore sua substātia, figura & specie, which wordes be this much to say nether after the consecration do the mi­sticall signes of bread & wyne, lose their own proper nature, but do continue and remain in their former substance, figure, and shape. This famous byshop taught this doctrine .xii. hundred yeares agone and more, and yet the Papistes name it new learnyng.

Moreouer Chrisostom, who florished foure hundred years & fiue, after Christ, Chriso. ad coesa. mon. and for his great knowledge and elo­quencie, was made byshop of Constan­tinople, and is famous at these dayes throughout the whole world, for his vertues and learning, he in a certen letter [Page] whiche he wrote against the Apolina­ristes to Cesarius a Monke in the tyme of his second banishment, sayth of the sa­cramental bread in Christes supper, that after the consecration, Liberatus est qui­dem ab appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione, etiā si natura panis in ipso permansit, that is to say▪ The Sacrament after the consecra­tion, was no more named bread, but it was called by the name of Christes bo­dy, notwithstanding the nature of bread remayned and continued styll.

What can be more playnly and di­rectly spoken against the transubstan­tiation, whiche was not heard tel of, vn­tyll fyue hundred yeares after the incar­nation of our Lord Iesus Christ?

Of these it is euident that by the iud­gementes of the elder fathers the sacra­mentes be named bread and wyne, not of that they were before the consecratiō, but of that they are styll so afterwarde as well as before. For they did preache and teache with one voyce and assent in diuers regions and countries, and in di­uers tymes and ages a thousand yeares agone, that bread and wyne are a sacra­ment [Page] of Christes honorable body and bloud without any transubstantiation, that is transmutation, chaunge or alte­ration of their substaunces and natures. And Christ our maister confirmeth this to be a moste true doctrine affirming w ^t an othe, Amen dico vobis. &c. The wyne after the consecration to be the fruit of y ^e vine, not the fruit of Mary, or the fruite of Dauid, and so doeth Paul fiue times naming the other sensible part of this mystery, bread as Christ before hym na­med it Granum frumenti, a wheat corne, or the fruite of wheat.

Here againe they reply that the fa­thers doe say that the natures of bread and wyne are altered, are turned, An obiect. and chaunged into Christes nature. For S. Ambrose in his boke whiche he writeth De ijs qui mitiantur mysterijs. Cap. 9. spea­king of this sacrament sayth, S. Ambro▪ li. de myst. Benedictio­ne etiam ipsa natura mutatur, that after the consecration the nature of bread and wyne is chaunged. And for a proba­tion hereof, he reherseth many thinges, whose natures GOD chaunged with his worde, and benediction. He telleth howe GOD chaunged the nature [Page] of Moises rod, turning it into a serpent, that he chaunged the nature of water diuersly, turning the riuers of Egipt into bloud, compassing the Israelites with y ^• read sead, Exod. 14. Exod. 15 as with a wall, causyng Iordā to run backward, and making the bitter floud Marath swete and delectable to drynke. He chaunged also the nature of the rock which poured furth water. He­liseus chaūged the nature of Iron, cau­sing it to swime aboue the water. Helias chaunged the nature of fire, when at his prayer it came down from heauen, who­se nature is to go vpward. These exam­ples saith the Papist S. Ambrose alle­geth to proue that the nature of bread is turned, is chaunged and altered, Ergo it doth not remaine and continue.

Ciprian also in his sermō of Christes supper saith: Cipria. de coena. Panis non effigit, sed natura mutatus▪ &c. That this bread is chaūged not in shape, but in his nature. And Theophilact. writing vpon Iohn. 6. saith: Theophil. pa­nis quem ego dabo, non est figura carnis, sed caro mea est, trāselemētatur enim panis. etc. that is, the bread, whiche I will giue, is not a figur of my flesh, but it is my flesh▪ for the bread is transformed.

[Page]I aunswer. Thanswer Nether do we deny the natures of bread and wyne to be chaunged and altered, & yet their substaunces must continue, for this mistery as Ireneus teacheth vs, must haue an earthli nature after the consecration, aswell as before, for so muche as this sacrament is made of two natures. How the fathers say y ^• the nature of bread is chaunged. Then howe are the na­tures of bread and wyne chaunged? Ve­rely euen as Ambrose sayth that the na­ture of water was chaunged, when the reed sea stode about the Israelites like a wall, and gaue them passage, as the na­ture of water was chaunged, Exod. 14 Exod. 15 when Ior­dan ran bakward, and when the sower Riuer Marath was seasoned and made swete, and delectable, Exo. 15.17▪ as he saith that the nature of the rock was chaunged, when it pored fourth waters, as he saith that Heliseus chaunged the nature of Iron, 4 Re. 6 when he made it swym aboue Iordan, & as Helias chaunged the nature of fier, causing it to descend dounward, 3 Reg. 18 whiche naturally ascendeth vpward. After this sort the natures of bread & wyne, ar chaū ged and altered in Christes holy supper, that is the naturall propertie of them. For before the consecration they do on­ly [Page] norish the body, after the consecratiō they doe feede our soules with Christes swete flesh, with his comfortable bloud, and with a deuout remēbraunce of his death & passion. In this signification Ambrose affirmeth the natures of bread and wine to be altred, Nature hath two significati­ons. Natural proper­tie, essence. & trāsformed in christs supper, meaning (I say) not their substā ­ces & very essence, which is the proper acceptation of y ^e word (nature) but the natural propertie of them, as appereth of his own forsaid exāples. For the substance & very essēce of fier was not altred, though it descended downward against his na­tural propertie, nether was y ^e very essēce of the read sea chaunged, though for a ti­me it stode like a wall about Gods peo­ple. Iordā was a riuer stil, though he ran bakwards, & the stream of Marath was water stil notw ^tstanding his nature was chaunged, that is his naturall propertie, which was sowernes into swetnes. The rock which powred furth abundaūce of water remaineth a rock still. Nether did Heliseus alter & chaunge y ^e very substāce & inward essence of iron, when he caused it being heauy to houe aboue y ^e waters. in al these miracles, which wer wrought [Page] by the mighty power of God, y ^e natures of the red sea, of Iordan, of Marath, of y ^e rock, of Iron, & fier are said to be chaun­ged & altered, that is, their naturall pro­perties. The worde (nature) can not be vnderstand otherwise in the forsaid exā ­ples. Besides, approued writers do vse it in this acception & signification, as Marcus Tullius in his boke de Somnio scipionis, of scipio his dreame: Tullius de somnio scipionis. Haec est anima natura propria. &c. This is saith Tully the very nature & office of the soule to moue himself. Notwithstanding Ambrose bringeth two examples, in which the very es­sence & substaunces are chaunged, as the turning of rods into serpentes, & the tur­ning of the waters of Egipt into bloud. Exod. 7 He alledgeth these two examples not to proue the transubstantiation, but to pro­ue & stablish a lesse mutation in the sacrament by those greater mutations. For nether the rods of Aaron & the enchaun­ters were transubstantiat into serpents, nether wer the riuers of Egipt transub­stantiat into bloud. We doe neuer reade throughout the scriptures of any suche mutatiō in any of Gods miracles from the beginning of the worlde.

[Page]Therfore when Ambrose, & Ciprian, or any other of the old fathers doe saye, that the nature of bread & wyne is chaunged, they do not exclude their substaun­ces and very essence, which they teach to remaine after the consecratiō, as I haue proued before, but thei speake of a muta­tion of the naturall properties of bread & wyne, wherby they are no longer com­mon bread & wyne, but through Gods power and benediction sanctified & holy sacramentes, chering vs with the com­fortable promyses, whiche God our fa­ther hath made vnto vs for the effusion of his sonnes bloud, and for the death of his body. The elder fathers do acknow­ledge, confesse, and teache no other mu­tation of y ^e outward signes. As for Theo­philact, Theophil. he is not of authoritie to stablish any article, for he reproueth the Latyn church for beleuing the procession of the holy spirit, and he was the yeare after Christ .1058. In the tyme of Lanfranke & Gerengary, when the byshops of Rome toke vpon them first stoutly to maintain and to publysh the doctrine of transub­stantiatiō, which before time was scarfly heard of. Albeit his wordes touching the [Page] sacrament doe not disagre with the doc­trine of the elder fathers if they be well construed. When he denieth the bread to be a figure, he speaketh of a vaine & bare figure, for so he expoundeth himself vpō Marke, denying that it is figura tantum, a figure only, whiche we do confesse and graunt. But he saith that the bread is transelemented, & transformed. He saith also wryting vpon the said chapter of Iohn, that we are transformed, & transe­lemented in to Christ, and almost all the elder fathers do say the same. And yet our natures remaine, we ar not transub­stantiat, we are not made Christes reall flesh, but vndefiled and holy flesh of his flesh, and suche as shall aryse and be im­mortal with him: for he doth knit, cople, and incorporat vs to him selfe by his sa­cramentes. Therfore as this word (transformed) doth proue no mutation of our substaūce, no more doth it proue the sub­staunce of bread, and wyne, to disconti­nue. There remaineth yet one reason, with which they defend their transub­stantiation, vnto which I thinke necessary to make an aunswer, forsomuch as it is commonly in al the mouthes, both of [Page] lay and ecclesiastical persons, which sup­pose Christes body to be eaten really & naturally. They say if we doe not eate Christes flesh really, why doth S. Paul make such as receiue vnworthely giltie of the Lords body and bloud? Why doth he teach such to eat and drinke their own damnation, 1 Corin. 11 because they make no diffe­rence of the Lordes body. These wordes do not proue y ^t Christes body is eaten of vs really or substantially. For Paull speaketh there of vnworthy receiuers which do not eate Christes body, Unworthy receiuers [...] regiltie of the Lordes body. which is the bread of lyfe, but the only figure & Sacrament therof, and they do eate the sayd only sacrament and only figure to their iudgement and condemnation, as I haue proued. This is not my doctryne but the doctrine of Hierom, Ambrose, of S. Austin, of Prosper, and of Bede, as is declared in the beginning of this lesson. The contemp of Gods sacrament, not y ^e contract or touching of christes reall bo­dy which is now in heauen, bringeth dā ­nation & causeth this giltines. For as he which violētly plucketh down the kings maiesties armes, or breaketh the kinges great seale, or clippeth his coyne, cōmit­teth [Page] an offence against the kinges owne persone, so they, which abuse the sacra­ment of Christes body and bloud, presu­ming to come to it as to common bread, not reconciling them to their brethren, nor sanctifying them selues to god, such presumers and vnthankefull persons do offend against Christ himselfe, be giltie of his body and bloud, that is of hys death, and doe eate their owne damna­tion. To come to Gods holy sacrament vnreuerently, To make no differē ­ce of the Lordes body what it is. without the wedding gar­ment, without any examination of thy lyfe past, without geuing thankes to God the father, for the dishonour and death of his sonne, this is Non diiudicare corpuus domini, to make no difference of the Lordes body. For Paul nameth here the sacrament the Lordes body, euen as Christ did, when he said of bread & wine, this is my body & bloud. For as boeth Cyprian, and S. Austin and other elder fathers do teach, sacramēts haue the na­mes of y ^e very thinges which they do re­presēt & signify w ^t certen similitudes. The aforsaid word of thapostle cannot be vn­derstād otherwise, for he speaketh of vn­godly mē, which do not eat christs body [Page] but the only figure to condemnation. He vseth a like phrase in the beginning of the said chapter, [...] Cor. 11 where he saith that euery mā praying or prophecying with a couered head dishonesteth & shameth his head, y ^t is Christ, referring to Christ an offence done to mans head, because it is a sacrament of Christ. After a like sort necligent and dome pastors, whiche doe contemne their flock, and neglect the honorable office of preaching, ar pronoun­ced of y ^e prophet Ezechiel, Ezech. 3 giltie of their bloudes, which do perishe for lack of en­struction and teaching. That vnworthy receiuers are giltie of Christes body and bloud through a like contemt and disso­lutnes, presumption, and neglygence, & not through any naturall, any corporall or real eating of his flesh. S. Ambrose declareth expounding Paules aforesaide wordes as it foloweth: Dabūt poenas mortis domini, Ambro. super episto. 1 Cor. 11. quia pro illis occisus est qui eius beneficium irritum ducunt, they shalbe promysed for Christes death (saith this ho­ly father) because he was slaine for them, and they do set light by his benefit. He doth interprete suche to be giltie of the Lordes body, which do not eate his flesh [Page] that is the fode of life, as I haue proued before, but the only figure therof to the condemnation of their contempt, pre­sumption, and vnkindnes. Therfore no transubstantiation can be proued of this place, for the defēce wherof, they do most shamefully wrest, and depraue not only the scriptures, but also the elder fathers. And to impresse thesame depely into the hartes of al men & womē, Christe [...] cup ought not to be denied to the laytie. they haue with holden from the laytie many yeares Christes cup for feare as they say of sheading his bloud, of which I will speake a few wordes in your gentil eares, & then I wyll conclude and finishe this matter.

Christ our maister commaundeth all men, and women to drinke of his cup, Math. 26. which commaundemēt the Apostles ob­serued as long as they liued, making no prouise, nor tradition to the contrary. And the vniuersall church folowed and obserued religiously the said precept for the space of a thousād yeres after Christ, as many be proued by plaine testimony of auncient wryters. For how with such handes (saith Ambrose vnto Theodosius the Emperour) wilt thou take the Lords holy body? S. Ambro. How darest thou drinke of y ^e [Page] cup of his precious bloud? These wordes proue that the tēporaltie in this holy fa­thers time receiued the sacramēt in both kindes, & that in their hādes. S. Hierom saith priestes, Hierom. in cap. 2. Ma. which do consecrat the sa­crament, & deliuer the bloud of Christ to the people. Chrisostom also obserued in his time this precept at Constantinople. Chrisost. 2 ad Corrin. Cap. 9 For he sayth the priest doth not eat one part, and the laitie another part after the maner of the old lawe, but vnto all is di­stributed one body, & one cup. And Gre­gory surnamed the great after whose ty­me syncere doctrine began to decaie, Gregory. witnesseth that this custome was kepte in the Romain churche in his daies saying: you haue learned what the bloud of the lambe is, not by hearsay, but by dryn­king it. Yea fiue hundred yeares after his death Gelasius bishop of Rome. 1118 yeares after Christ made a decree for the confirmation of this custome, Galasius. 1118. because then some presumed to take vnder one kynd. Nether can it be proued that the laytie were restrained from the Cup of Christ before the rayne of Friderike the first surnamed Barbarossa, Fride. Barbarossa. 1160. to whiche restraint notwithstandyng the Orien­tall [Page] churche wold neuer consent, but vse kyndes alwayes. Yet the Papistes would make it a tradition of the Apost­les, where as in very dede to cause men to haue an honorable opinion of priuate masses and of their transubstantiation, they them selues of late dayes haue ta­ken on them to forbyd that, whyche Christ commaunded, that whiche the A­postles folowed, that whiche the vni­uersall churche obserued from tyme to tyme, as is declared.

And because they would not be coun­ted presumptuous for makyng this re­straint, An obiect▪ they cast many perils and daun­gers, whiche myght folowe, if the Cup were made common to all men, and wo­men. Dyd not Christ who fortold ma­ny thynges to hys Disciples, who is the wysdome of God the father, forsee these peryls and daungers? If he dyd forsee them, Thanswe [...] why dyd not he make a re­straint? Or at the least commaunde a re­straynt to be made afterward?

Yea Christ of the bread speaketh not so vniuersally, take ye, eate ye: But concernynge the Cup, he geueth a ge­nerall precepte, drynke ye of thys [Page] all, Math. 26. as forseing this restraint, and enstructing men aforehand not to obey it, when it should come. An other obiection. Yet some are so impudēt, and so drouned in ignorauncie, that they dare defend the one kind by Christes ex­ample and the Apostles. They say, that Christ at the toune of Emaus distribu­ted but bread only to a couple of his dis­ciples, it is not mencioned that suche as embraced the felowship of the Apostles receiued any wine, Luk. 24 the text saith that thei cōtinued in breaking of bread. Act. 2 Therfore as it is a laudable custome to vse both bread and wyne, so it is not euell to di­stribute bread only to the temporaltie. For both Christ and his Apostles did so in the primatiue churche. I aunswere: Christ did not consecrate the sacrament to his disciples at the town Emaus, Thanswer but by his mighty power wrought a mira­cle in the diuision of the bread so Nycho­laus Lyranus, wryting vpon the sayde text, Nicolaus Liranus. doth vnderstande it, witnessing that Christ brake the bread so euen, as if he had cut it a sunder with his knife. Nowe though bread only be named, yet this is no sufficient profe, Act. 2. that they did receiue the sacrament, but in one kind. For vn­der [Page] the name of bread the scripturs do cō teine meat and drinke, and all maner of victualles as in the Lordes praier, when we say, giue vs this day our daily bread, Math. 6 we aske all necessary fode for the norish­ment of the body. Againe we read that Christ went into y ^e house of one of y ^e chief Phariseis, Manducare panē sabbato, Luk. 14▪ to eat bread on the sabboth day, that is to dine or sup with him, as all writers take it.

The Prophet Esay saith to euery one of vs, Frange esurienti panem tuum, Esay. 58 break thy bread to the hūgry, exhorting vs by an Hebrue phrase vnder y ^e name of bread to minister all bodely fode, all necessary sustenaunce to the poore. Some make another answer to the aforesaid place of Luke. Erasmus in his annotatiōs doub­teth whether the bread which Luke saith was broken among the christians of the primatiue churche, Erasmus. were common bread or sacramentall, and sanctified. And ma­ny other are likewise in doubte hereof. Wherfore no certain doctrine can be stablished of y ^e aforesaid place. Yea though Luke both cap, 24. and Act. 2. doe speake of the sacrament, yet forsomuche as all victualles are comprehended vnder the [Page] word (bread) who is able to say, that the sanctified no wyne. It foloweth in the te [...] that Christ, and his disciples, When they had geuen prayses, or as some do rede had song an Hymne, they went out into mount Oliuet.

What god r [...]quireth of vs after our receit.We are taught here by the ensample of Christ and his Apostles two offices, which God requireth of vs after the re­ceit of the Sacrament, first in that they gaue thankes and prayses, let vs learne, that it is the office of euery Christen mā, before he depart from Gods table, & also all his life time to render harty thankes to God the father for his great clemency and mercy, for the remission of his syns, through the dishonour & death of his ho­norable son. To this end & purpose this mistery was chifly, & principally ordey­ned, y ^t so noble, & worthy a benefit shuld not fal out of remembraunce, forsomuch as it is our only comfort against damnation, and eternall death. Therfore many of the elder fathers of Christs church do name this sacrament [...], that is a thankesgeuing. Folow the ensample of Christ thi high shepeherd & of his Apost­les, which finished not this mistery with [Page] out thankes to the diuine maiestie. Theī cōtinued also in geuing of thākes, & breaking of bread, as Luke regestreth, wry­ting their liues after Christes ascention & departure. What wordes they vsed, Act. 2. it is vnknowē, & also whether thei sang an Hymne, or only said it. The greke word is indifferent ether to singing or saying. but though god do not here esteme y ^e voice but y ^e hart, yet both song & instrumēts be laudable & approued ceremonies in Gods church as I wold proue, but only because I wyll not be ouer long. If we wyll not honor God with due thankes for his innumerable benefites procured vnto vs through Christ, Relapse into sin is daungerous. but become vn­thankeful & vnkind, if after that we be deliuered from sin & receiued into Gods fauor, we turne frō his holy cōmaūdemēt, then is our latter end worse then the be­ginning. For of such S. Paul sayth: 2 Pet. 2 If any man defile the temple of God, 1 Cor. [...] hym shall God destroy. Behold examples hereof in the newe Testament. Iudas after that he had bene longe in the bles­sed felowship of the Apostles, for betra­yng the giltles for a brybe, Math. 27 Act. 1 and through the detestable vice of couetousnes, hong [Page] himselfe, and vtterly lost the fauour of God. Act. 5 Ananias and Saphira his wyfe, for practising the said detestable vice of couetousnes after breaking of bread in the primatiue church, were stroken with sodain death. Many among the Corrinthians were stroken with diuers disea­ses, 1 Cor. 11 and some with sodain death for lyke offences, as Paul witnesseth. For no­thing displeaseth y ^e diuine maiestie more nothing so kendleth his fury and indig­nation, as relapse into sin, after that thou hast bene at his sonnes holy table. For thou treadest vnder thy fote his honorable son, Hebr. 10 Hebre. 6 thou crucifiest him againe, thou countest the bloud of the new testament which sanctified thee, an vnholy thing, & doest dishonour the spirit of grace.

The second office, which we ar taught here, is thencefurth to passe our life time in praier and in sekyng after heauenly things. For Christ and his Apostles frō geuing of thankes, go straght ways to mount Oliuet, which place as Iohn the Euangelist saith, Iudas who betrayed him knew very well: for Iesus oftenty­mes resorted thether with his disciples to pray. Ioh. 18 Luk. 22 If he had gone to an vnknowen [Page] place, seing his time was at hand, many would haue thought, that he had suffe­red death for our redemption agaynst his wyll. To auoyde this suspicion and to teache vs that he died of his own vo­luntary wil and goodnes without com­pulsion, Et secundum propositum. &c. Ephe. [...] That is according to the purpose of his father to the prayse of the glory of his grace, he resorted to his accustomed pla­ce, whiche his betraier knew. Also he re­sorted thether as Luke wryteth, to pray, not that he had nede of prayer, Luke. 2 [...] whiche is a remedy against sinne, but to sturre vs therunto by his ensample. For seyng he prayed often and so diligently, who ne­ded not beyng without all spot of synne ether originall or actuall, howe nedefull a thyng is the same for vs whiche be sin­ners? As the lyfe of fyshes lieth in the water, and out of water thei lose their liues, so I say vnto you the soule of man, and womā dieth without prayer, nether can we eschewe euyll, or exercise vertue with out continuall and earnest inuocation of Gods dayly helpe. Let vs learne therfore of Christ, who prayed not for hym selfe, but for our example to resort after [Page] the Communion not to the tauerne or ale house, not to a bowlyng ally, nor to a dysing house, as many do dayly, but to go into Mount Oliuete, that is, to a place of prayer, as he dyd, alwayes then­cefurth lokyng vpwarde towardes hea­uenly thynges, that he may encrease in vs all spirituall giftes to the glory of his name. For as fathers in earth wyll not let their chyldren knowe their priuities, their secrete treasures, and riches, nor make them partakers of their commodities and landes, as long as they folowe the wyld swynge of their youth, and de­lyght in vanities, no more wyll God the father to the louers of worldly vanities, deale his spirituall graces, nor discouer the glorious ryches of his kyngdome. We must dispise worldly thynges and become Egles, that is, we must flie vp into Mount Oliuete, we must lyft our myndes vp into heauen, where Christes body is, at his fathers righthand. For it is wrytten, Math. 24 Vbi cadauer, ibiaquilae, where the carcas is, thether the Egles resort. Christ our maister, nameth his own bo­dy a carcas, because of his death and pas­sion, for onles it had died, we had not a­rysen. [Page] And he calleth vs Egles, teaching vs that we must not crepe on the groūd, we must not tary in earth, but we must eleuate not bread & wyne, but our harts, our thoughtes, our cogitations, & spirits to the throne of Gods maiestie, where Christes body which was a carcas, is now in eternall glory, to whome with the fa­ther, and the e­ternall spirit be al honor, and glory, prayse, and thankes. So be it.(⸫)