Question. I.

WHat is a Sacrament?

All the old Latine Diuines almost haue so turned, that same Greeke word [...] peraduenture following the com­mon translation of the Latine interpre­ter of the Bible, who in most places hath so expressed it.

Verily I doe graunt this thing, but I doe meruaile that the Prophets & A­postles, the very Writers of both the Testaments, do in no place call those which we cal the old & new sacramēt Sud or [...]. For that same place of S. Paule to the Ephe. 5. 32. doeth not pertayne vnto the action it selfe, but rather vnto the effect thereof: to wit [Page] vnto our vniting and growing vp to­gether with the head itselfe.

It is euen so as thou sayest: and yet for all that we must not thinke that the Greeke fathers, when they called those holy ordinaunces, mysteries, or the Latine fathers when they called them Sacramentes, did adde any thing to the word of God. For we are not forbidden for instructiō sake, to vse some words be sides the word of God, so that we doe it not vnaduisedly, neither do change any whit in the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles it selfe.

2. Question.

But wherfore were those same ho­ly ordinances so called?

Why the Grecians called those holy ordinances, mysteries, the thing it selfe sheweth, to wit, cōparing thē w ^t the sim­ple preaching the worde of God. For­indeed this preaching is plain & mani­fest: but these ordināces haue a mysti­cal & secrete signification, because they bee one thing, & eyt teache another. As [Page] heathen & prophane nations had their mysteries and theyr mysticall secretes, whereby after a wonderful maner Sa­tan did bewich men: so the first ordeined Christiā churches in Grecia, that they might distinguish those holy ordināces (to which indeed they that were newely entred into religion were not to bee ad­mitted) from the simple Christian doc­trine, did adde those same words of my­steries & secrets, of a common vse, to sig­nifie holy thinges, albeit in times past they were applied to signify most filthie ceremonies.

3. Question.

But it seemeth that the cōsideration of that same latine worde Sacrament should not be altogether the same.

Neither in very deede is it. But it seemeth to me, that the latines borrow­ed this woorde, from that same Sacra­ment or othe which was woonte too bee vsed of Souldiers, wherin they solemn­ly and in certayne prescript woordes were bound first to the common weale, then to the Emperor: & that plainly ap­peareth [Page] out of that learned and aunci­ent writer Tertullian. For so he writeth in his book De Corona Militis: I think (sayeth he) we must search out, whe­ther warfare bee meete at al amongst Christians. Doe wee not beleeue that it is lawfull too bring in an Hu­mane Sacrament vpon a Diuine, and to aunsweare to another Lorde, after Christ, and to renounce father & mo­ther, and euery neighboure, whom the lawe commaundeth vs to honor and loue next after God? By which wordes this also appeareth to be shew­ed, that those same solempne Couenants which were woonte too bee required of those that were newely entred intoo re­ligion; Doest thou beleeue? I be­leeue: Doest thou renounce? I re­nounce; were taken after a sorte from that same Custome of the warlike oath, and so applyed too the Baptisme wher­by Christians sware obediēce to Christ the Lorde and King. And heereof is that same saying of the same Tertulli­an too the Martyrs: Wee are called to the warfare of the liuing GOD, [Page] euen then when we answeare to those woordes of the Sacrament. And also that of Hieronymus to Helidorus Re­member the day of thy nonage, wher­in beyng buryed with Christe in Bap­tisme, thou swarest too the woordes of the Sacrament. Yea and the verie woorde of goyng a warfare is often v­sed of Moyses, concerning the whole worship of God. Now it ought to seem no wonder that the supper of the Lorde began also to be called a Sacrament, which both was ioyned with the Bap­tisme of those y ^t wer newly receiued into religiō, as may appeare by the 2. Apo­logy of Iustine, & out of the olde bookes cōcerning their rites & ceremonies, & also is the pledge of the vowed & sworn felowship made in baptisme.

But why was that oth called a Sa­crament?

Euē bicause souldiers vsing holy rites vowed & consecrated themselues, w ^t vn­godly ceremonies whilst many Christi­an souldiers refused, they suffered mar­tyrdom.

4. Question.

These things concerning the name do satisfie me. But this doth not a lit­tle trouble me, that wheras my mind seemed in our first treatise to be quie­ted I know not how it falleth out that the very name sacramēt being heard, it is again troubled, as thogh I know not what newe matter were further to be known of me, & somuch the ra­ther because there is no cōtrouersie, that at this day more embusieth chri­stian Churches then that.

This is the craft of Sathan, w ^c neuer mocked & deceiued mē more being addicted to those outward things, thē w ^t the outward worship of God. Now here in offence hath byn cōmitted two maner of waies. For some wil seme so altogether of y ^e spirit, that they despise all outward things as grosse: others againe beleue nothing in a maner, vnles they may fele & handle it w ^t their hands. But they that wil heare God first speking by his pro­phets, & then by his Apostles shal go to neither side. But herof we shal see more [Page] hereafter, that al things may be hādled in their fit place. In few words therfore thus I answeare thee. Although God teach vs spiritual & euerlasting thinges inwardly by his spirit, notwithstanding he semeth to haue set this law vnto him self, to teach vs the same by the senses, w ^c are giuen vs vnlesse it be when he would worke any thing extraordinarily in his children. Now there are fiue senses as it were the messengers of the minde, too wit, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, & feeling. Of these God hath made spe­ciall choice of two, too wit, seeyng and hearing, of which I woulde gladly learne of thee, whether thou thinkest to excell the rest?

I thinke, Seeing, whose place aboue the rest seemeth to bee vnspeakeable.

Thou art greatly deceaued. For albeit the sighte seeme by kinde as it were too drawe nearest the verye nature of the mynde it selfe, aswell for the swiftnes of the eyes, as for theyr sharp­nesse in beholding things: yet notwith­standing [Page] forasmuche as thou canst see nothing but that w ^c is to be seen, and as a mā would say, sightable, & in those things themselues which are seene, the most notable things cānot be seene, but in mind: and there are more things infi­nitely which cannot bee beholden then which may be seen with the eyes: & to be short, seing whatsoeuer is conceaued in the mind may by the sound of words, (for soūd is appointed to teach the mind by the eares) after some sort bee expres­sed. It followeth that hearing by infi­nite oddes is a more profitable instru­mēt, then seing, for y ^e knowing of those thinges that are conceaued in the minde.

I came that I might heare a diuine, & not a naturall Philosopher.

When thou knowest to what end these words tēd, thou shalt wel vnderstād, y ^e I do not any whit at all decline from the scope and end of a Diuine. And if it be a wicked thing for them that speake of Diuine thinges, too touche anye thing of naturall Philosophie, then [Page] then thou must of necessitie blotte out in a manner al the woorde of GOD. Deniest thou therefore that there is greater vse of the eares, thē of the eies for the knowledge of thinges:

No not so verily, seeing we learn euerie thing by hearing, and onely behold thinges that are sightable or to be seen, neither are we cunning in thē, vnlesse we be by hearing taught of others, both what and what maner of things they are. But where­to tende these thinges?

That thou shouldest knowe, that when God appointed to teach man, concerning that same secret will of his (in the knowledge whereof consi­steth all our saluation) he chose out frō amongest all the other senses, that of hearing, as most fitte for that pur­pose, by which faith cōmeth, and there­fore Rom. 10. righteousnesse and life, as the A­postle teacheth. And her of is that same authoritie and worthines of the woord of God so oftentimes witnessed in the [Page] holy Scriptures.

But in vaine is it vttered to them that are deafe: And thou hast taught in thy former treatise, that we are altogither by nature vnapt to heare the woord of God.

Now truely any man may very wel heare that is indued with the sense of hearing, and also may vnderstand the meaning of those things he hath heard neither is he deuoyd of reason. But in good earnest to agree and consent to these things so heard and vnderstoode, as right and true, no man can doe it, but by the peculiar grace of the holy Ghost, which notwithstanding is gi­uen to many Reprobates for their far­ther iudgement. To conclude, for a man to apply the promise of saluation in Christ particularly to himself which is the verie propertie of faith, this is onely giuen to the elect, which gift wee call, the regenerating grace. This foundation being layde, in deede the woord of God is not preached to them that are deafe. GOD giuing vs [Page] eares to heare, and as Saint Luke saith opening our heartes, that wee might apply through fayth vnto our selues, those thinges vnderstood w ^t our eares, which flesh and blood teacheth not.

5. Question.

I see not yet howe these thinges should belong vnto the Sacramēts.

Yea, but I haue sayde before, that God to the end he might certifie vs of his good will in sauing vs, hath also chosen the sense of seeing, which was the cause of instituting the sacraments

But seeing these same euerlasting and heauenly benefits, which are set foorth vnto vs in the holy scriptures to be layde hold vpon by fayth in Christ are spirituall, they cannot be seene but in minde, yea and Christ himselfe cannot nowe bee seene by any carnall eyes.

Thou sayest verie true. But GOD hath found out a way where­by hee might in a manner set these [Page] thinges before our eyes, yea which were of them selues inuisible and were for the greatest part (as I may say) not to be vnderstood. Nowe that thou mayst see this matter more plainly, I will not stick to vse a distinction vsed of that same Dionysius whosoeuer he were. He sayth therfore, that part­ly the doctrine wherby god deliuereth vnto vs those same holy thinges, is cleare & applied to our knowledge, as whē this or that is spokē vnto vs in v­sual & knowne wordes: partly darckly and mystically spoken, which also he calleth symbolical, that is, which is so after a certaine sort taught, y ^t it doth not by & by set forth those thinges na­ked & to be vnderstood, but as it were leadeth vs about by certaine thinges enterlaced and wrapped vp. And that it is so, the holy Scriptures plainely shew, as we will anon declare.

6. Question.

Are therefore some principles of Christian doctrine plainlyer and some darkelyer taught of God, in the Church?

Surely in this point many haue greeuously offended, because they translated those thinges to the things themselues, that belonged to the forme and maner of teaching: as though forsooth he taught, I cannot tell what part of heauenly wisdome to be necessarie to saluatiō to the common sort: & another part to belong I cannot tell to what more perfect men.

7. Question.

Doest thou say therefore, that no other thinge is taught of God by the eyes or in the sacraments, then that which is perceiued by the eares, or by the simple word?

I say that these differ not in the thinges themselues that are taught, but in the manner of teaching.

8. Question.

But to what purpose was it to adde that symbolical and obscurer manner of teaching to that simple and plaine kinde, if no other thing be taught in that then in this?

Yea rather that w ^c thou thinkest to be the harder, is the plainer & more effectu­al. For teline I pray thee if that be not more certaine vnto thee, which thou per ceiuest by more senses, to witt both by hearing and seeing, thē that which thou vnderstandest by hearing onely:

Question.

I graunt, if those things whereof some man speaketh vnto mee bee also set before myne eyes. But what if those things be not plainly seene, but be onely shadowed foorth by some signes?

I answer that then that shewing foorth is more effectuall, if the explica­tion of that signe be added, then if it were onely handled in woordes. For I pray thee if the Maior or chiefe go­uernour giuing thee y ^e possessiō of some houses in woordes, should there with all deliuer into thy hād, the keys the pledg of that possessiō, whether thou woldest not be the more assured of that thing, then if he had deliuered those houses vnto thee in vare woordes.

Doest thou say therfore that this same other way of teaching our sal­uatiō, which thou callest symbolical, because it is done by certaine signes set before our eyes hath certaine words added wherin the verie signi­fication of those signes is set foorth?

I say indeed, y ^t in this matter, wher­of we now intreat, y ^t is, in y ^e sacramēts of the church properly so called: For othermise also y ^e types, ceremonies, & i­mages in visions, & to conclude para­bles, to w ^c, there was notalwaies added their explicatiōs, they are referred too this mystical diuinity. For God taught y ^e church more obscurely before Christ was geuē to it, thē Christ himself afterwards did, & after Christ the Apostles: & also he instructed his disciples more familiarly, then y ^e commō people, whē he spake vnto these as they deserued by parables, but opened vnto thē the my­steries Luke. 18. 10. of the kingdō of heauen. Nowe that thou maist also the better vnderstād this, wil it please thee, that we deuide these sacramēts or signes into seuerall kinds:

10. Question.

It very wel pleaseth me. How ma­ny kindes therefore I pray thee are there of them?

I say, folowing Augustines stepps in this matter, that some are naturall, as smoke is a signe of fire: others are prodigious and ioyned with some miracle of which sort the Lorde tea­cheth there shall bee some in the Sunne, Moone, & Starres: to con­clude, Math. 24. Luke. 21. other some are either of the will and deuise of men, as a bushe hanged vp is a signe that wine is to be solde: or of God as the rainebowe in hea­uen, is an euident signe, that the world Gen. 9. 15. shall neuer bee destroyed with the floode.

11. Question.

But to what kinde doest thou re­ferre the Sacraments?

Surely forasmuch as they are nei­thee naturall nor miraculous signes, they are referred to the last sorte, that is, to those that are voluntary, institu­ted [Page] by the wil & appointment of God.

Yea, but they are natural things, especially those which are giuen in our Sacraments.

I graunt it: but in that they are sacraments, verily they haue not this of na­ture.

They are therfore miraculous. For there is nothing more beyond na­ture, then that which is perfourmed in the Sacraments, and the Apostle sayth, that it is a great mysterie that is ordeyned in the supper.

I treate not of miracles, which also are called signes & tokens because they sealed the power of God, & y ^e truth of the prophetical & apostolical doctrine. Mark. 16: neither of those signes y ^t were shewed to this or that man for the cōfirming of their faith, or to the whole people (though not to a perpetuall vse) such as Manna was frō heauen, or the passage through the red sea, but of the [Page] ordinarie sacraments, ordeined for the cōtinual vse of the whole church, wher­of Augustine intreating in his 3 boke of the Trinitie chapter. x. and indeede expresly naming it the holy bread: These things (sayth he) may haue honour as religious thinges, but they cannot bee woondered at as mer­ueilous things. Now that which thou diddest alledge out of the Apostle, is not spokē of the signes but of the effects which follow the lawfull vse of the sa­cramentes, as I will declare in his place.

12. Question.

But these which thou callest volun­tarie signes, or ordeined by God, be they of the same kind?

No not so. For some are only for re­membrances, that is, ordeined and ap­pointed for that vse, that they might onely be monuments of things past, as the xii. stones taken out of the bottōe of Iordan, which might be a witnesse of the riuer dryed vp. Moreouer others, are put for signes, that is, such as ei­ther [Page] set foorth a thing present, or a thing to come: as the rainbow in the firmament being not only a signe of the couenant begon with Noah, but also as it were a certaine pledg that neither now or euer hereafter there shalbe any more drowning of the whole world. To con­clude, others some are so ordeined, that besids that they call somwhat passed, to our memorie agayn, they witnesse also, that that thing for the signification whereof they are vsed, is truely and in deede giuen vnto vs, and they do as it were seale the promise therof in vs. So Christ breathing vpon his Disciples, gaue them the holy Ghost, inwardly in spiring, that which he signified by the outward breathing & therwithal giuing it.

To what kinde therefore doest thou referrethem wherof we intreat?

To the last, whereby somthing past is signified, somthing present is giuen, & that thing now giuen, & to be giuen, is sealed.

Wilt thou therefore, that the sa­craments wherof we shall intreat, be partly remēbrances of thinges past, and partly seales of things present, and hereafter to come?

Yea euen so.

Therefore I woulde at the length that these things should be declared vnto me by some fit difinition.

I will doe asmuch as in me lyeth: But so as I touch by the way those olde ones, so farre foorth as these newe may and ought also to bee vnderstoode by comparing them with these.

This is the thing also I seeke.

But I cannot yet satisfie thee fur­ther, but with a preface.

Why so I pray thee seeing we haue nowe by way of preface spoken so many things already, & also thou hast said that in the sacramēt we are [Page] taught none other thing, then what we are taught by the outward word.

So is it needefull that we might a­boyd the sophisticall cauilles, w ^c Satā specially hath vsed in this behalfe, therof taking occasion, for that, men are ta­ken w ^t none more certaine baites then bodily thinges, w ^c when they are refer­red vnto spirituall things wherto they serue, it falleth out contrariwise that wee measure spirituall thinges by the nature of bodily things, w ^c is the con­tinuall beginning & ofspring of idola­try: Wherfore Augustine wittily and truely repeated this sentence, that it is a miserable bondage to take the signes for the thinges signified.

13. Question.

Let vs therfore once againe vse the exposition of that doubtfull word.

I see that a Sacramēt in this mat­ter is sometime called the signes only, & somtime the things thēselues sacra­mentally signified, as we haue said in the first signification: therefore thus I [Page] define it. A sacrament is a visible signe, ordeyned of God for the church, by the vse wherof Christ with his benefites, w ^t respect eternal life, is so by a certein fitte proportion signified, that also tru­ly and in verie deede he is sealed in the hearts of the beleeuers.

13. Question.

I pray thee that thou wilt expounde this difinition vnto me.

I cal that a signe w ^c Augustine so de­fineth, Lib. 2. cap. 1. of christiā doctrine, that he saith it is a thing, w ^c besides the shew that it offereth to the senses, maketh by it selfe some other thing to come into our re­membrance as water cōsidered in the vse of Baptisme, besids the shew of wa­ter that it setteth before the eyes, representeth vnto our minds, the blood, wherby our sins be washed away. I add, or­deined by god that I may shew, part­ly y ^t neither by their own nature, nei­ther by miracle, but by y ^e institutiō & or dināce of god, those natural things are made sacraments: partly that I may teach that this change is not to be attributed to y ^e words thēselues pronosiced, [Page] but wholie to the ordination of God: the which ordinance is plainly expres­sed in the wordes themselues.

14. Question.

Deniest thou therefore that woor­king worde, as they call it?

If thou cal that the working word, that witnesseth God to work somewhat, I admit that speech: If thou cal it so, as though God had put some vertue in the words thēselues, I reiect this dreame, as altogether magical or enchanting.

15. Question.

What vertue therefore haue these voyces & words?

They haue this vertue to shew vnto vs the wil of God of any matter, whether he promise, threatē or cōmand, or to bee short, whether he do this or that. And I say that nothing els is too be attributed to the words pronoūced of any, but that they be signes of those thinges w ^c they are said to be. I adde, for the Church, that I may distinguish those particular & momentarie sacraments, which belōg to the whole company of the faithfull, & [Page] belong to a continuall vse from them, I adde farther by whose vse, that I may confute their grosse errour who dreame I cannot tell of what diuine quality in­fused into the signes, which they should haue without the vse it selfe, wherevpon haue followed infinite superstitions ve­ry ridiculous, that I speake no woorse of them.

Thou sayest therfore (that I may vse this example) that that consecrated bread of the Lords Supper, out of the action it self, is common bread, which notwithstanding in the action it selfe is the true Sacrament of the Lordes body.

I say so.

16. Question

It seemeth notwithstanding that many of the olde fathers being nota­ble men thought otherwise.

Of this we shall see more heereafter in his proper place. I adde that Christ and his benefites are set foorth vnto [Page] vs by a fitte proportion. First that I may shew the thing signified by al those Sacramentes whereof we entreate, as also by the simple word of God, not too bee onely those benefites which wee ob­tayne by Christ, whereof wee haue dis­coursed more fully in our former trea­tise: but specially to be that Christ him­selfe, whom whosoeuer possesseth not, he cannot obtayne any of these by him. I call that a fitte proportion, which cau­seth the thinges signified to bee offered by the signe to the vnderstanding set be­fore the eyes. For I pray thee wouldest thou paint an hearbe, that thou mightst represent a man to him that woulde be­holde a man? Very well therefore sayde Augustine: Vnlesse (sayth he) the Sa­craments had some likenesse of those thinges, they signifie they should not be Sacraments. But of this we shal see more herafter. Last of all I make men­tion of sealing folowing the steppes of Rom. 4. 11. the Apostle, who not onely calleth Cir­cumcision a signe, but also a Seale, that we might know that the Lorde in deed performeth that which he promiseth by [Page] the signes added thereto. Now indeede that thing, although it be offred vnto all, yet notwithstanding the beleeuers only are made partakers therof, in minde or spiritually, & therefore I added, in the mindes of the beleeuers.

17. Question

But how thou doest define a Sacra­mēt in that other larger significatiō?

So I define it, to be a certaine holy ac­tion ordeined of God for the church to cōtinue to the end of the world, wherin God by a certayne fit proportion of the signes & things signified, nourisheth in vs the remembrāce of things past: part­ly offereth vnto our mindes, euen as it were setting thē before our eies, heauen­ly things, w ^c are declared by the word of Institution added thereto, and must spiritually be sealed vp by the meanes of fayth: wherby, to be short, the separa­tion of the children of God from the world, and their mutuall felowship is ratified and confirmed.

18. Question.

I woulde haue thee particularly to explane this definition vnto me: & [Page] why thou shouldest call the signe an action, seeing neither the signes nor the things signified are actions.

Yea but certayne kinds of signes are actions, as by & by I will declare. But admit it be no action whatsoeuer heere fall out, yet notwithstanding this gene­rall woorde is set in this definition, be­cause both the signes themselues & the thinges signified, are thereto referred, that doing that God hath commaunded both they might bee signes vnto vs, and those thinges might be bestowed vntoo vs. Now the Sacrifice is also an holy actiō commaunded to the church from a­boue, but only somuch differing frō this, as there is difference betwixt to giue, & to take. For in sacrifices, we offer som­what; in the Sacramentes, wee receaue somewhat. But hereof more hereafter.

I aske not why thou saiest these are holy, why from aboue, & to cōclude, why commanded to the church: For I vnderstand these things by the for­mer. But I demand why thou addest that speach [euen to the ende of the world.

Because I thought that wee had purposed onely too entreate of the Sa­craments of the Christian church which without all controuersie in the end of the world are at length too be abolished.

19. Question.

Be it so. But what vnderstandest thou by the word [signes?

Two thinges, to wit, first that which they were wont to call the element, that is too say, that earthly and bodily sub­staunce, as the water in baptisme, and bread and wine in the Lordes Supper: then the rites w ^c are oftē vsed in the acti­on it self, which also are Sacramental, neither onely ought they to be changed or omitted.

20. Question.

And what callest thou the propor­tion?

That same agreement of the signe with the thing signified, as of the wa­shing of water, with the washing of blood, and of the nourishment of this [Page] life with the nourishment of euerlasting life.

21. Question.

And what are those same thinges signified?

Christ himselfe, as I haue sayde be­fore, with all his benefites necessary to the saluatiō of the particular members of the Church.

22. Question.

And why doest thou adde that worde [spiritually?

That I may shew the sealing of these thinges to depende vppon the heauenly power and mysticall vertue of the holy Ghost, and not vpon the bodily vnder­standing or outwarde senses, or vpon that naturall and sensitiue vnderstan­ding.

23. Question.

Why dost thou adde [by faith?

First that I may teach, that indeede the signes are set forth vnto the outward senses, and are receiued of them: but the [Page] thinges themselues are offered too the minde, and yet notwithstanding are not receiued of euery minde (albeit they be offred to the mind of al that come to the Sacraments) but onely are receaued of that minde that is indued with fayth: because faith is the onely instrument of receiuing Christ.

24. Question.

But why doest thou make mention of things past?

Because our faith looketh partely too those thinges which Christ for our sake hath performed, & partly it beholdeth the promises, w ^c are not yet fulfilled in vs.

25. Question.

What callest thou Healing?

A more effectuall application by the increase of faith. For the greater Faith is, the more excellent is the effect ther­of, that Christ with his gifts may be as it were more and more engrauen in vs: whereto the Apostle hauing regarde, he saith that Christ groweth vp in vs, & we againe in him.

26. Question

But what is that same naturall esta­blishment of our felowship in Christ?

So I cal that same spiritual knotte of loue, whose bond is, in the right vse of the Sacramentes, strongly tyed, as it were, of members knit vntoo the same head, & quickened by the same spirit, as­well by outward profession, as by the ac­cesse of the inward affection.

27. Question.

Say therefore what is the efficient cause of our Sacraments?

Christ, God, & man according to his own good wil & power, which he testifi­eth in prescript wordes by the mouth of the minister.

28. Question.

And what is the matter?

The matter of the Sacramentes is two fold: one earthly, the other heauenly, as Ieremias witnesseth, w ^c a man may also cal essētial parts. For in very deede whatsoeueuer is in y ^e Sacrament either it offereth it selfe to the outward sēses, & so is considered as a signe: or els it is a spirituall [Page] or a heauenly thing, and so is sig­nified by that outward.

29. Question

What thou diddest meane by the name of signe, thou hast saide before, but what doest thou call the spiritual and heauenly thing?

I call the heauenly thing chiefly Christ himselfe, then his benefites, and last of all, the application both of him­selfe and of them vnto vs.

Goe to then, let vs speake of these three seuerally: wilte thou not, as I suppose, vnderstande by the name of Christ, the alone power and operatiō of Christ flowing intoo vs, and much more also that his only righteousnes, which by imputation is made ours?

Thou iudgest aright, for Christ him­selfe must become ours, and must bee ioyned vnto vs, as in whom are al these things, that we may draw those things from him, that are in him: and that ap­peareth plainly by the proportion. For [Page] thou canst not be washed, vnlesse water be applyed, and thou canst not be fedde, but by taking meate and drinke.

But as I gesse, thou vnderstandest Christ wholly, and not eyther his Di­uinitie alone, or his soule alone, or his body alone.

I vnderstand, whole Christe, and all that belongeth to Christ. For Christ be­yng diuided cannot be a Sauiour.

30. Question.

And is there any difference in these.

Yea indeed that there is, whereof we will speake afterwardes.

Goe to let vs leaue this nowe. But if the matter be so, why dost thou vn­derstande Christ by the name of that spirituall and heauenly matter? Doest thou it in respect of his Diuinitie or Soule?

No not so. For thou seest in the Sa­craments [Page] mētion to be made expressely, of the blood and of the body: and againe of the blood, which as they are of a bo­dily nature, so also they are represented by bodily signes, to wit, by water, bread and wine.

31. Question.

And why dost thou cal that thing spirituall and heauenly?

Not because they are of a spirituall & inuisible substance: or bicause they are now endued with heauenly glory, as the Apostle saith that our bodies shalbe spi­rituall & heauenly, to wit, in glory, & not in substance: but because they are sette foorth in these mysteries, not to our bo­dily senses, & after a bodily maner. For neither can our bodily senses doe other­wise, but (as the words teach) to be be­holden in minde, and to be laid hold vp­pon by the hand of fayth.

32. Question.

These are then but mysteries in imagination?

So I see some gather: but howe [Page] vndeseruedly they so conclude, I will then shewe, when I shall come to that question: How we may be partakers of those thinges signified?

Therfore let vs come to that other part, to wit, to the benefits of Christ: which therefore are they?

These are declared of vs in the for­mer treatise. But they both may and ought, keping the Analogie or propor­tion of the signes and thinges signified be brought to two certayne heades, too wit, to washing away and too nourish­ment, whereof that is established in the mysterie of Baptisme, and this in the mysterie of the Lordes Supper.

33. Question.

And what callest thou washing a­way?

The forgiuenesse of sinnes, in place wherof succedeth the obediēce of Christ, and the abolishing that is begon of the corruption of nature, to which sanctifi­cation now begon in vs, is opposed.

34. Question.

And what callest thou nourishing?

The growth, as it were, and increase of these.

35. Question.

Now there remaineth the thirde, which thou diddest call the applying of these benefites.

So I call that same as it were a cer­tayne insinuation, which is by the po­wer of the holy Ghoste woorking in vs: but is signified by Sacramentall, not vaine and vnprofitable rites: to wit, by the bodily washing through the put­ting into the water and comming out a­gayne, and also as well by the bodily both eating of breade and drinking of wine.

36. Question.

But what is the forme of the sacra­ments?

Euen that same outwarde action duely and lawfully obserued, and also that in­warde action of the holy Ghost.

37. Question,

But doeth this forme change the substance of the signes?

No not so. For they should cease too be signes, if they were changed into any other substaunce: because the Analogie or proportion, wherein consisteth the whole consideration of the Sacramēts, shoulde perishe. There is therefore a Sacramentall chaunge, but not a sub­stantiall, that is, not consisting in the chaunge of the thing it selfe, but in the vse thereof changed, as when wa­ter is made the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, and breade the Sacra­ment of his bodie, and wine also of his blood.

38. Question.

But thou a little before diddest cal these [partes.

I did so, and not without cause. For these twoo which are causes by themselues, are also essentiall partes of the thinges, as the Logicians doe very well teach.

39. Question

Nowe what are the endes of these Sacramentes?

Some chiefe endes to wit, that Christ (as I haue said) with all his gifts may more & more be sealed in vs: othersome not so special, as that by this badge al­so we shoulde bee distinguished from o­thers that make not profession of the Christian faith, & should bee knit toge­ther more and more amongst our selues in mutuall loue.

40. Question.

And is there no more?

Yes, this also is to be added. That the Sacraments are also remēbraunces of thinges past: as in the ceremonies of baptisme, the powring out of water doth set before our eyes as present, the shed­ding forth of Christes blood: the putting into water & the cōming out, his death, burial, & resurrection: also the breaking of bread in the Supper doth after a sort represēt vnto vs, Christ crucified for vs.

41. Question.

These thinges being expounded, I woulde gladly learne of thee, what the knitting together of the signes & the thinges signified is. For thou art not ignorant, that this controuersie is specially handled nowadaies: Whe­ther the body and blood of the Lord be really present yea or no, that is, in the same place where that bread and that wine is, or whether the signes re­main as some think, or be abolished, the accidēts onely remaining, as they teache, which consent with the Pope.

This controuersy is growen so whot and come so farre, that for the deciding thereof, we neede rather conscience then knowledge; but the Lorde alone either by some wonderfull iudgement, or some notable example of his mercie will de­cide it: notwithstanding I will en­deuour too make it playne when I shall come too speake of the Lordes Sup­per. Now that I may answeare to that which is demanded, I say, that foras­muche as the thinges signified both [Page] in the simple woorde and in the Sacra­mentes be partly things not subsisting or standing by themselues, as the for­giuenesse of sinnes, the gift of sanctifi­cation, the encrease of faith, incorpora­tion into Christ, and suche like: that the questiō of the real presence of the things signified must necessarily bee restray­ned to some real beyng. Now as I sup­pose, no other can bee put but Christe himselfe. And when they with whom wee agree not, concerning this matter, doe not themselues (as I suppose think that Christ should bee deuided, as those that complaine (notwithstanding vnde­seruedly that the same is done of vs: be­cause that we denie the reall presence of Christes bodie: Doest thou thinke that the state of this question is so too bee taken. Whether Christe GOD and man bee present in those places themselues, where the Sacramentes are ministred:

So I haue read in some of theyr wrytinges, who notwithstanding affirme this not generally of all Sa­cramentes, [Page] but onely of the Lordes Supper.

I woulde not doubte too affirme the same both of the supper of the Lord, and of Baptisme, and also after a cer­tayne manner of those Sacramentes, which were before the comming of Christ into the Earth: neither woulde I think my selfe a Christian, if I should denie this.

42. Question

I am glad that we agree amongest our selues.

God graunt, that at length, we may agree. Therfore heare, I pray thee: It cannot be denied, but that Christ accor­ding too his Godhead is euery where. This likewise is without all controuer­sie, that forasmuch as mans nature is so taken of the Woorde, that GOD and Man are one reall beeyng, it must needes followe if thou consider Christe as some one, and singular thing, that whole Christ is also euery where pre­sent: and yet not as in the Sacra­mentes [Page] in which vndoubtedly there must be appoynted some peculiar and special manner of presence, as I may so speak, that they may be distinguished from o­ther common thinges, in which also hee is present.

The other thing that I would haue wel weighed of thee, is this: that which is spoken of the whole is not yet spo­ken of the singular parts, being amōgst themselues of a diuerse kinde. As for ex­ample. All the whole that we call man, we define to be partaker of reasō, which yet thou wilte not say, of no essentiall parte of man considered in it selfe. And yet there is somewhat in this definiti­on, too witte, reason, which is attri­buted to that other parte of man, euen to the soule.

Doest thou not see then that whole Christ, that is, Christ considered as a certaine whole and absolute thing, is ano­ther thing then all belonging to Christ, that is Christ whō thou shalt way par­ticularly by his partes. For in this case let it be lawful for me, to atttribute also the name of a part to the Godhead.

43. Question.

I see it very well, but is there any more.

Yea, I woulde haue this farther to be marked of thee, that certain thinges doo so fitly serue for the establishing of some singuler thing, that that which by no meanes can agree by it selfe to some one, may yet be attributed vntoo it, as it cleaueth & is conioyned with another: the which thing is so farre foorth true, that it may also be sayde of those which yet but accidentally, onely and for a time are ioyned together: as for ex­ample, when a King is crowned and is honored in his robes, the crowne and his robes are also reueren­ced, but yet in respect of another thing, to witte, of his kingly dignitie, wherof they are ornamentes, not in respect of them selues. For heereby it plaine­ly appeareth, that the honour and re­uerence is not referred too those things, because when, the king hath put them off, no man can endure to reuerēce [Page] them, vnlesse he bee out of his wits, but they are reuerenced for another, to wit for the Kinges sake of whom they are worne. Neither euer doth the crown or robes grow vp into one real being with the king. Much more therefore shall some thing be said in respect of another which is ioyned personally with ano­ther, which yet can by no meanes in re­spect of it selfe be attributed vnto it. So there is attributed to the worde taking mans nature, that which is peculiar to mans nature as when it is sayd, that God suffered: as also to maas nature, Actes. 20. 28. that which is peculiar to the woorde ta­king vpon it mans nature, as when in mās nature at what time he talked with Nichodemus in the earth, he sayd that Iohn. 3. 13. he was in heauen.

These thinges thou hast handled before. But thou diddest adde that this was spoken, of certaine distinct woordes, to witte of God and man. But of the abstract, to witte of the Godhead and manhoode not so.

Vnlesse this be so, the confusion of the naturall proprieties of eyther nature must needes follow, which are signified by those abstract woordes. Therfore we say rightly and godlyly that God was crucified and dead, but it were vngodly & wicked to say that the Godhead were crucified or deade. Notwithstan­ding it seemeth to me that this also af­ter a certeine sorte may bee graunted without any damage of the faith to bee sayd of the abstract themselues, so that alwayes we adde expresly, that it is not spokē in respect of thēselues, but for an other, that so the cōcrete may be vnder­stood by y ^e abstract to be so determined.

44. Question.

Say therefore at the length, whe­ther Christ him selfe according to his humaine nature, bee present in verie deede, and in his owne sub­stance, wheresoeuer christian Chur­ches doo administer the Sacra­ments.

I say therefore that whole Christ, that is, if he be considered as a certaine [Page] whole and one thing consisting of two natures to be present truely and indeed not onely in the sacraments, but also in all things. Notwithstanding I deny that it followeth herevpon, that his hu­maine nature considered in it selfe, is a­ny where else thon aboue, so far is it of y ^e he can be present at one time by his substance in many places, or euerie where. And yet againe I graunt that if this humaine nature be considered, not in it selfe, that is not in respect of it selfe. but of another, that is if it be so considered as it is one reall being with the woorde of whom it is taken, that it is as present euerie where as the word it selfe, from which it cannot be drawen not because the selfesame nature is pre­sēt but because it is ioyned with y ^e word which euerie where is present.

45. Question.

Concerning what matter therfore is the cōtrouersie betwixt you & thē?

Concerning this, that aswell they which defend transubstantiatiō, as they that defend consubstantiation, will haue [Page] the humaine nature it selfe, at one time to be both aboue and beneath, now wee teach that it is onely aboue: neither doo we therfore diuide the person.

46. Question.

But doo they place that presence simplie in all things, or in the sacra­ments onely?

Such as will haue Christ present in all places at once, will haue him in all things, in so much as they will not haue Christ as Christ in respect of his sub­stance to be otherwise in, vnder, or with the breade then in al other things: and that by the power of the personall vni­on, which they determine by the real effusion and pouring foorth of all the ver­tues of the Godhead into that fleshe taken: in which sense they interpret al­so the assention of Christ into heauen, and his sitting at the right hand of god. But certain others do so teach this re­all presence of Christes flesh to the peo­ple, that they them selues thinke that Christs flesh hath obteined this of the Godhead, to which it is ioyned that it may be in verie deede in many places [Page] at tonce as it will, the trueth thereof re­maining safe and sound, but that it ap­peareth the plaine words of the institu­tion of the Supper that Christ woulde haue his fleshe present there indeede: whervpon it should follow that this presence should especially be established in the Sacrament of the Supper, other concerning the matter it selfe think the same thing: but they fetch this presence from the wordes themselues of the In­stitution, adioyning his sitting at the right hand of the father, omitting that same power of the personall vnion. To conclude the popish Transubstantia­tours condemning that hold vbiquitie, place this reall presence in the alone sa­crament of the Aultar (as they speake) sticking in a woorking power of cer­taine words and omnipotencie of God.

And what thinkest thou of these?

I thinke that all these opinions of­fende in this, that either they will not or know not to distinguish betwixt a thing in respect of another, & in respect [Page] of it selfe, which ignoraunce vexed the Church, so many yeeres by the Nesto­rians, Eutichians and Monathelites. And further I say, that there is a shame full errour committed in this, that they drawe those thinges to a Sacramentall presence, which belong too an vniuersal presence and common to all thinges.

47. Question

Thinkest thou therefore that those thinges which thou hast spoken of the presence of Christes fleshe in re­spect of another, to belong vntoo al thinges?

Yea altogether. For otherwise thou shouldest determine the Godhead of the Worde, to be somewhere absent, and therefore not to bee the Godhead. Not­withstanding it is a speech lesse hearde in the Concrete if thou shouldest say, that Christ, euen man, rather, then the flesh of Christ, is euery where in respect of another. For that same man is also God, notwithstanding not in himselfe, but in respect of the other nature, too witte, the Worde. But the humaine [Page] nature of Christ is not the Godhead, neither in it self, nor in respect of the word: but if it can be said too bee euery where, therefore it is only said, because it is one reall beyng with the woorde and so sub­sisteth in the same Worde euery where present.

48. Question.

What therefore is the Sacramētall coniunction of the signe, & of Christ himselfe?

That which agreeth to the nature of the Sacramentes, and too their ende. Nowe we haue declared the nature of the Sacramentes to be such, that by the signes offring themselues too our out­warde senses, our mindes in a cértaine proportion might be carried first indeed to beholde the thinges signified, and af­terwardes vnto those thinges which are therefore set before vs to bee looked vp­pon, that they may be apprehended and through fayth by the power of the holy Ghost, bee more and more applyed vn­to our mindes.

49. Question.

To bee short, then what maner of presence is this?

Certaynly not that which respecteth situation of place, but that which is al­together respectiue, or rather of relati­on and belonging too another. For a Sacrament is in that predicament, which the Logicians call relation.

I woulde gladly haue this made more easie vnto mee.

I will doe it, if I can, but I woulde that now for a while the persons beyng changed, that my selfe shoulde take the partes of asking & thou of answearing. Be not words the notes of those things that we woulde haue signified in euery tongue to the mindes of the hearers by certaine soundes?

Yes verely.

What if I shoulde contend, that eue­ry thing whereof I shoulde speake must be present in very deede?

Surely that should seeme vnto me very foolish, seing we may speake also of things past and of things to come, yea of thinges which neuer were, are not yet, or perhaps neuer shalbe.

Notwithstanding of whatsoeuer thing I shall speake, I shall represent the same by my wordes vnto thy minde.

It is so.

Thinges therefore are signified by those voyces, wherby they are signified not by a naturall situation, and too bee short not by their own substance, but by a certaine respect or phrase of speeche & habite of wordes added, so farre foorth as they settle them as it were in the vn­derstanding of the hearers.

50. Question

I pray thee declare this vnto mee more plainly.

Knowe thou that the copulation of the Sacramentes, and of the thinges [Page] signified by the Sacramentes are alto­gether like. For as Augustine sayde very wittely: The Sacramentes are as it were some visible woorde, as that which the wordes sounde too the eares, the same they shew to the eyes. There­fore they question most fondly heere of the reall presence, seeyng that reall pre­sence (or rather of the matter and sub­stance it selfe) in a certaine place, & the Sacramentall presence are not indeede continually repugnaunt and contrary: but yet notwithstanding they so farre foorth differ betwirte themselues, that that also which in very deede yet is not, yet is sacramentally present: whereto Paule hauing regarde, he sayeth that the Fathers did eate the same meate, 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. and drinke the same drinke, too witte, Christ. And it is so farre off, that this Sacramentall knitting shoulde bee in vayne, that contrariwise as we shall say in his place, it is more effectual thē any naturall copulation.

51. Question.

But who maketh this mutuall or respectiue copulation?

The will of God declared, in the word of institution.

Wilt thou therefore that wee en­treate of consecration?

I woulde rather for certayne special causes, referre all this to the treatise of the Lordes Supper.

52. Question.

Doe they not therefore make fru­strate the signes, whosoeuer teache that the thing signified, is absent frō his substance?

Surely they do not make them void, vnlesse we say that they are vain words whereby we doe no lesse ingraue in the mindes of the hearers, thinges absent then things present.

Who then make them voyd?

They that teach, that the Sacramēts are only bare memorials of things past­or badges of Christian mutuall felow, [Page] shippe, or that the thinges which are signified by them are not truely offred, to be layde holde vpon with the instru­ment of Fayth, as it were by the hande.

53. Question

Now I would thou shouldest de­clare vnto me, what manner of par­taking that is, both of the signe, & of the thing signified.

I suppose thou canst not doubt of the first parte of this question. For see­ing the signes are bodily thinges, they are also naturally receiued by the in­struments of the body of all that come thereto.

54. Question.

Let vs therefore speake of that other parte of this question, that is, of the partaking of the thing sig­nified.

We haue shewed that Christe him­selfe with his giftes is the thing sig­nified, of which giftes some of them are made ours by imputation, but the [Page] others are wrought in vs and cleane too vs. I say therefore that these, seeing they are meere qualities as they are offered to the mindes onely, so they are layde holde of by the onely instrument of the minde, yet indued with fayth, which is the onely hande of the mind to embrace the promises of GOD. This whole partaking therfore is euery ma­ner of way spirituall. For that, whereof we are partakers, is of a spirituall na­ture, and is wrought by a spirituall in­strument, yea and the whole action of this instrument is spirituall.

55. Question.

But thou canst not say the same of Christ, as who is not being a qualitie according to either nature or any such like thing.

Yea, but first of all, concerning the very person of the woorde, I suppose that it were a verie wicked thing, too thinke that we could be partakers of it, otherwise then by vertue and operati­on. For otherwise wee also shoulde become Gods by nature: and so that [Page] place. 2. Pet. 1. ver. 4. is to be expoūded, and all suche other like places, as all Interpreters of anie name or credite agree.

I agree to it, and I detest that dotage of the Manichees renewed by Serue­tus, thinking God to be so present in all thinges, that hee is also a parte of them. But what sayest thou of the hu­mane nature of Christ?

Neyther doest thou as I sup­pose, thinke the substaunce thereof in very deede too bee ioyned with our Soule. For what is more foolishe then this souldering and sealing to­gether of mindes? But thou wilte not saye that the substaunce of the Soule can be layde holde vppon by any Or­gane or Instrument of the bodie.

56. Question.

But what? shal we thinke the same of the very bodie of Christ?

I graunt, that bodily thinges may bee participated by bodily senses, but [Page] I vtterly reiecte that reall, touching and cleauing together of the bodie of Christe with our bodies, as a Mon­ster, then which nothing can bee faig­ned more false and lesse fitte, for the ende of the Sacramentes, pretende they what they wil, for the maintenance of this dotage.

Therfore say why thou callest that false?

Because nowe it can by no meanes bee made too agree with the trueth of the limited fleshe of Christe, and it is altogether contrary to the whole histo­rie of the Gospell, as I shall shewe in his place.

And why serueth it not for the end of the Sacramentes?

Because the whole Sacramentall Action is wholly referred too euerla­sting life, and therefore it must needs bee that this partaking must bee [Page] wrought by the mynde and by Fayth, and not by the Instrument of the bodie: Wherefore also as the outward signes are sette foorth too the outwarde sen­ses, so the thing signified is set foorth to our vnderstanding and faith.

57. Question.

But if thou take away the parta­king of the substaunce it selfe, then in steade of the bodie and soule of Christe, or in steede of Christ him­selfe, thou onely placest the vertue of him.

Yea but I doo not take away that same partaking of Christ him selfe. For euen like as the bodie is nourished with meate in this life, and that must first be taken in verie deede: so also I determine (which also I haue sayde be­fore) that wee muste partake of Christ him selfe, so, as we must bee made one w ^t him in very deed, that that same liuely iuyce may be deriued out of him into vs. For he neyther saide, This is my me­rite: or this is the fruite of my pas­sion: but this is my bodye: Neyther [Page] said Paule, that we were only baptised into the death of Christ, but that we also did put on Christ: or that the bread w ^c Rom. 6. 34. 2. Cor. 10. 16. we breake was the partaking of his be­nifites, but the partaking of his body. Therefore that I may returne to the matter, I doo not take away the body it selfe, that I may place the vertue therof insteed of the thing signified: now that which is signified by the sacramēts that very self same thing is giuen to the ende we should be partakers thereof in very deede, neither doo I denie, that we are partakers of Christ, indeede. But I affirme this partaking or laying hold of or application or communicating to be meere spirituall and mysticall.

58. Question.

Why doest thou call it spirituall?

First that I may shut out, all tou­ching of the bodie of Christ with our bodie, all locall coherence and existing together, and to cōclude that mōstruous opiniō of eating w ^t the mouth as meere Cyclopicall (howsoeuer it bee excused [Page] with other no lesse fained deuises of not beingseen & being without place. Next, because this pertaking in respect of vs is wrough by the onely hand and mouth of the minde and of faith. For this is the meate, as Augustine hath verie wel sayd, not of the belly but of the minde.

59. Question

But why doest thou call it mysti­call.

That I may teach that this knitting together, wherby we are made fleshe of his flesh and bones of his bones, to witte by a certaine spirituall mariage dooth depend of the only power of the almightie spirt altogether secret and incom­prehensible to vs, which also knitteth nearely together things most farre a­sunder. Ephe. 5. 30. 32. Therein following the stepps of the Apostle, who cryeth out that this is a great misery.

60. Question.

And why also callest thou that communicating [an vniting & knit­ting togeather?

Because the whole Scripture wit­nesseth that we must be made one with Christ, that we must be incorporated into Christ, & beknit to him as mēbers to the heade, so that he may liue in vs, and we in him. Now this connexion wee affirme to bee not onely of a cer­taine consent, as when Luke writeth Actes. 24. 31 that the heartes and soules of the belee­uers was one: but also natural, or as Cyril hath very wel writtē, that so must be vnderstood the communion of Christ himselfe.

61. Question.

Canst thou shadow out vnto mee after some sort, by some fitte simili­tude this mysterie otherwise incom­prehensible?

Yes verily that I can, euen out of the same similitude of the head and mem­bers so vsual with the Apostle. I besech thee therefore whēce haue these armes their naturall sense and moouing? Surely euen from the heade to which they are knit after a naturall manner, as it were by ioyutes sinewes and arti­ries [Page] which otherwise shoulde become deuoyd of all motion and feeling. Now imagine with thy selfe that euen as boxes of sweet smelling oyntment doe euen pierce things verie farre of, and the se­crete Magnes is a stone, that hathe the propertie to draw yron vnto it. force of the Magnes preuayleth against yron, though it be remoued far frō it, so is there so much liuely strength in this my heade, that although it were at Constantinople, and one of myne armes in India, and another in Spaine, yet notwithstanding, by the help of these same fitte and conue­niēt ioyntes, it is able to giue them life: imagine I saye some such thing with thy selfe and thou shalt haue the lyuely Image of this our incorporation into Christe. For Christ him selfe according too the fleshe neyther nowe placed a­ny other where then aboue these hea­uens intoo which hee hath ascended according to the fleshe, by a physicall and naturall moouing, neyther shall come agayne from thence, before that same last day doth so truely and effectu­ally knyt, couple and ingreffe into him [Page] self al beleeuers placed here in this earth by that same diuine power of his woor­king in y ^e matter which is hindered by no distāce of place y ^e afterwards out of his flesh in which life it self dwelleth bodily, and which hath not receiued the spirite by measure, that same liuely iuice might flowe into vs beleeuing in him.

62. Question.

Therefore there is no neede either of any locall motion, or touching, or to be short of any placing of the hu­maine nature of Christ in the earth, for this knitting of vs the members, vnto our heade Christ: neither doth this same communicating of Christ himself, tend to this, that ther should bee a commixture and mingling of substances, but that out of Christ himselfe, spiritually, so ioyned vnto vs that same quickning power of his should flow into vs.

Fye, away I say with al those false and foolish tryfles.

63. Question.

But why doest thou rather make mentiō [Page] of the flesh then of the God­heade in this coniunction or knitting togeather?

I doo not this, as though the God. head did nothing here, when as contra­wise in very deede, the very fleshe of Christ simply and considered in it selfe as it is fleshe, dooth not quicken vs, but because as the Fathers very wittily speake, it is the flesh of the woord. But in this I follow Christ the Maister, ex­presly repeating the names of his fleshe and bloode in this mysterie of our con­iunction with him, because we cannot be ioyned with him, but by reason of his humaine nature, and in asmuch as he is our brother.

64. Question.

But like as thou sayst, that this meat is receiued of vs onely by the mynde endued with fayth, shall we likewyse thinke, that the fruite of this vni­on dooth onelye belong vnto the minde?

No not so. For Christ beyng layde [Page] hold vpon of vs by faith in this life, doth bestowe vpon vs all good benefites as­well of the bodie as of the minde as ma­ny and asmuch as we haue neede of, and at the length will also giue vnto vs who­ly euerlasting life.

65. Question.

But doest thou restrayne this our vniting with Christ, to the only mys­tery of the Lordes supper, as some do?

Be it farre from vs. For both in the simple woorde, and also in eyther Sa­crament, albeit in an vnlike propor­tion neyther equall effect (vnlesse our vnbeliefe doe let it) whole Christ is of­fered vnto vs too bee layde holde vpon, spiritually by faith, so farre is it off that wee shutte Christ out of the Lords Supper, as diuers doe sclaunder vs.

66. Question.

Doest thou thinke then that there is no difference betwixt that dayly partaking of Christ through [Page] fayth, and that which is made in the Lordes supper?

Yea, I thinke that there is greate difference, vnlesse vnbeliefe let it, be­twixt that which I call meere spiritu­all, & that w ^c is sayd to be sacramentall and yet notwithstanding not concer­ning the thing it selfe, neyther in re­spect of the instrument of fayth, but in this, because there onely by the woorde, but here also by visible signes our fayth is admonished, and the thing signified is sealed. Moreouer this partaking excelleth the woorde in this, that the simple worde for the most part is vniuersally sette foorth vntoo the people, but the Sacramentes are giuen vntoo euerie singular person, as it were by the hande of GOD himselfe, which thing dooth woonder­fully profit vnto that same particular and full perswasion that ought to be in euery one.

67. Question [Page] 67. Question.

But doest thou thinke that Christe in like sort was set foorth vnto our olde fathers, before his comming in­to the fleshe, and all his benefites as­well in the simple worde, as in the types and Sacramentes ioyned to the worde, also to bee apprehended and layde holde off by fayth?

I am altogether persuaded so, for the self same Christ, yea the same whole Christ, both in his audible worde and also in his visible wordes, that is to say in the Sacraments, is set foorth to the selfe same ende.

68. Question.

I had almost quite forgotten that which I woulde gladly haue asked of thee, to wyt, howe it is that Sainct Augustine writeth, as thou hast cyted, that the Sacramentes can worke no suche astonishment as miraculous thinges doe, if that same mystery of the vniting of Christ and his Church together be so wonderfull.

I haue answered vnto that alreadie, that it is one thing to aske of the Sa­cramentes themselues, another thing of those thinges which God doth worke by the vse of them. Augustine there­fore doeth very well forbyd, whether we respect the nature of the Sacramentes or the Sacramentes them selues, that they should bee numbred amongest mi­racles, because it is not straunge, ney­ther also against the order of naturall thinges, that some thing for the analo­gie and proportion, and also by the co­uenaunt of men shoulde bee vsed for the signifying of some thing altogether dif­fering from the nature thereof. For I beseeche thee, what miracle is it that the betrothing of maryage to come, shoulde be signified by a Ryng: and put­ting into possession of houses, should not onely be signified by the deliuering of a Keye, but also confirmed? There is the lyke reason altogether to bee had of the Sacramentes, although not par­ticularly [Page] yet generally, albeit those thinges which God worketh in vs (if wee rightly vse the Sacramences) doe exceede the vnderstandyng euen of the very Angels them selues.

69. Question.

But that which thou hast spoken of our Sacramentes, doest thou also thinke of those same olde Sacra­ments?

I say both twayne in those thinges which are as I may say of the substāce of the Sacrament it selfe, doe altoge­ther agree, but they differ in certaine circumstances.

70. Question.

Shewe me therefore how they doe agree

First of all they agree in the effi­cient [Page] cause. For Christ our onely law­giuer appoynted both these and them: further they agree in the inwarde thing it selfe. For Christe was that same tree of lyfe in Paradise, that same Lambe slayne from the beginnyng of the worlde, that same Paschall of the Fathers, takyng away the sinnes of the worlde, that same spirituall Rocke, that same meate and drynke of the Fa­thers, which thyng also is to be thought of those same types and figures, and to bee short, of all the olde Sacraments. For very ryghtly and truelye sayeth Augustine in the six and twentie Trea­tise vppon Iohn, that the Sacraments of the Fathers in respect of the signes, were diuers from oures, but concer­nyng the signification they were alyke. They agree also in the worde concer­nyng the substaunce, albeit the voyces be not the same. For there is signified in the worde of institution, that Christ and his gifts are offered vnto vs in either, to y ^e Fathers as to come, but to vs w ^c come already: moreouer in both two there [Page] is found the selfe same instrument of ap­plying him, and the same Fayth in di­uerse signes, as the same Augustine saith in his 45. treatise vpon Iohn. Al­so the selfe same end and effect is in both of them. For Circumcision was both the signe and the seale of righteousnes by faith. Rom. 4. 11. And the Fathers were circumcised in Christe with the circumcision of the heart made without handes. Col. 2. 7.

71. Question

But in what thinges differ they?

Firste they differ in the signes (by which I vnderstande the Sacramentall rytes them selues) which we haue more spiritual & fewer & lesse laborsome, fur­ther in the playnesse of the word, which in ours is much more clearer: whervpō also groweth another difference in the very measure of the efficacy and opera­tion it selfe. For the more playne and manifest the woorde is, the more ought wee to be moued, and therfore the more effectual ought our faith to be. Wherto also belong the woordes of the selfsame [Page] Augustine, that our Sacrament are fewer, easier, more significant, and more full of Maiestie: to which also that may bee added, that these differ in this, be­cause they were instituted onely vntill the comming of Christe: but ours shall take no end but with the worlde.

72. Question

If it bee so as thou sayest, it appea­reth vnto me that the state of the Fa­thers was mightier in twoo greate thinges then ours: First because they had more, then because they had more significant helpes of faith, then wee.

But I pray thee, whethers weake­nesse of the bodie wouldest thou iudge to be greater, his that hath need of two staies to vphold his going, or his which leaning vpon one staffe, doth easily goe anie whither?

Surely I woulde thinke him two­folde weaker then the other.

Euen so perswade thy selfe of the e­state [Page] and condition of those fathers. For the multitude of Sacraments, sheweth not that theyr condition was the better, but contrariwise that it was worse. For neither should our faith, if it were strong ynough of it selfe, neede the Sacra­mentes.

73. Question.

But certainly it seemeth that there was in those Sacramentes a more playne Analogie or proportion of the signes with the thinges signi­fied. For in very deede the flesh and blood of those slayne sacrifices, did more playnely represent the fleshe and blood of Christe crucified, then bread and wine: and Manna falling downe from heauen did after a sorte more liuely set before our eies the in­carnation of the word, also the water flowing out of the opened rocke, the blood of Christe flowing out of his wounded side, then the breaking of bread & the powring out of wine in­to the cup.

In good sooth those not yet done but [Page] to be done, ought to bee represented too the fathers by a more grosse proportion then vnto vs, bicause that it is farre har­der to beleeue thinges to come, then al­ready done and witnessed by a sure and playne historie. Therefore as thou hast sayde those signes did signifie the thing to come more grossely & palpably. But in this thou art specially deceiued that thou thinkest the more grosse the Ana­logie or proportion, is that the more sig­nificant it is.

Why so?

Because the thinges signified by the Sacramentes are heauenly, which fleshe and bloode teache not, but that same onely Maister of trueth the holie Ghost: wherevppon all Beleeuers are sayde by Esay and by Christ him­selfe, Esay. 5. 14. Iohn. 6. 4, 5. to be taught of GOD. There­fore the efficacie of the Analogie or proportion dependeth vppon the woorde, whereby is sette foorth both what it is and whereto it tendeth.

Wilt thou bee so good as to sette downe some similitude, whereby I may more fully vnderstand what this matter meaneth?

Verily I am very well content, that also the mouthes of the Sophisters may be shut vp. If thou beyng altogether ig­norant of these mysteries, shouldest see some circumcised, what wouldest thou thinke of it?

Surely I would thinke the Parents to be very cruell towardes their newe borne babe, so that I shoulde vtter­ly detest them, vnlesse I shoulde vn­derstande their meaning to be other­wise.

But thou shouldst indeed vnderstand it, if I shoulde shewe vnto thee that this were done by the commaundement of God. But if so be also I shoulde declare vnto thee, by the institution of God, that by the foreskinne were signified our na­tural filthinesses and their fruits, which [Page] that same sonne of GOD to be borne should take away, by the shedding forth of his blood, thou wouldest a great deale the rather cōtent thy selfe. Notwithstā ­ding thou wouldest desire being taught now the selfe same thing, that the same might be shewed vnto thee after a more fit manner, and with lesse danger of the infant. Nowe if that same simple wa­shing shoulde bee instituted in the place of that bloody cutting of the foreskinne, thou wouldest sure preferre this condi­tion before the other. And the same rea­son is there of those slayne Sacrifices, which were both laboursom and costly. And concerning those same miraculous wonders, to wit, of Manna falling from Heauen, and the water flowing foorth of the rocke, these are to be rehearsed, in the number of those same figures which were once shewed, & not amongst the Sacramentes which are perpetual, against which our Sacraments are not to be set, but the trueth perfourmed in Christe himselfe giuen vnto vs.

I vnderstand that which thou say­est, [Page] to wit, that the more simple the proportion is, the more playne the worde is, whereby the signification it self is expressed, the more excellent is our condition then our fathers. But notwithstanding it seemeth that that same Analogie of the old Sacraments is more playne.

Neither doest thou in this point vnderstand what thou saiest. For in very deed in circūcision thou seest nothing but the cutting of of the foreskin: that is to say, thou seest one onely part of the benefite of Christe shadowed, And yet neyther ought the olde man onely too bee abo­lished, but also the newe man too bee borne in vs: neyther that onelie too be taken away which offended God, but also that righteousnes to be geuen where­in he is delighted. Now the very water of baptisme and the rites themselues, doe they not declare eyther benefite muche more playner vntoo vs? And so the difference also of our Fathers, feastes and of ours, is muche more eui­dent. Thou wilt saye that fleshe doth [Page] more expresly represent flesh then bread: and the slaying of a sacrifice the slay­ing of Christ: admyt it. But to what end is Christ slayne vnto me, vnles I be a partaker of him? Surely no more then dainties set afore mee, whereof notwithstandyng I shal not eate. Ther­fore our Sacraments, that first parte not altogether pretermitted, but yet lesse curiously signified, of which we are fully persuaded in the history of the Gos­pell, doe set as it were liuely before our eyes, that same other principall parte. For in very deede the vse of bread, is muche more to the nourishment of this lyfe, then the vse of flesh: and forasmuch as the life is in the blood, and the Fa­thers were restrayned from all vse of blood, which nowe wee are no lesse com­maunded to drinke in the wyne Sacra­mentally, then spiritually to eate fleshe in the bread: who seeth not that our Sa­cramentes doe excell those same olde ones, euen in the very signes and sacra­mentall rytes?

74. Question.

Yet there remaineth another doubt, [Page] howe it shoulde come to passe, that the humayne nature of Christ, not yet existing in deede, shoulde for all that be the thing signified of the olde Sacramentes, and so indeede that it shoulde be truely communicated vn­to the Fathers.

What thinkest thou therefore that the Sacraments of the olde fathers sig­nified? For neyther doe I thinke that thou dost agree vnto them, who wil haue thē to be certaine resemblances ioyned onely vnto earthly promises.

Surely I consent not vnto that vn­godlines, which transformeth the people of God into a stye of Hogges. But I aske whether they thinke right­ly enough, who thinke those same giftes in Christ bestowed vppon the Church (which if it lacke it cānot be a partaker of euerlasting life) to bee promised and giuen also in the Sacra­mentes of the olde fathers: but not­withstanding, those were not yet gi­uen forth which as yet were not.

Surely thou doest wonderfully molli­fie the harde opinion of these men. But I doubt not too say with the Apostle, that they did truely and indeed eate the same meate that we doe, and dranke the same drinke, to witte, euen Christ him­selfe 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. GOD and man.

Howe so?

First, because the Apostle plainely speaketh so.

Yea, but the Apostle saieth not in such plaine woordes, that the Fathers did eate the same meate that we eate, or dranke the same drinke that wee doe, but rather that they did eate the same amongest themselues, albeeit with a farre other effecte: as at this day aswell the Godly as the vngodly, are partakers of the same Sacramēts, but some to saluation, and othersome to iudgement.

This Sophisticall startinghole is [Page] confuted by foure reasons. Firste, be­cause that Argument of Sainte Paule were not strong enough, if the Sacra­mentes shoulde bee made vnequall in substaunce and in verie deede. Agayne, because the Apostle pronounceth in playne and euident woordes that this meate it selfe, and this drinke is Christ. Thirdly, because hee chaungeth the very names of the olde Sacramentes and of the newe, attributing the newe vntoo the olde, that hee may declare that same thing too bee both in the thing signified, and in the vse. Fourth­ly, that thing playnely appeareth by the expresse woordes as well of others as also of Augustine, in the 45. trea­tise vppon Iohn, and in his Booke of the profite of repentaunce, the 102. Iohn. 1. 29. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Epistle and elsewhere. But nowe if this thing agree vntoo the Figures, muche rather is it too bee thought too agree, vnto the Sacraments which are perpetuall and which are appoynted to signifie this one thing alone. In which sense Iohn the Baptist sayde, Beholde the Lambe of God which taketh away [Page] the sinnes of the worlde: & Paule, Christ our Passeouer, is offered vp.

75. Question.

But what if I shoulde except that all these things signifie nothing else but the onely efficacie or vertue of Christ to come?

Yea, but his efficacie dependeth as wel of those things which Christ should suffer for our cause, as of Christ himself. Why therefore shouldest thou now bee more offended, when I say that the ve­ry humane nature of Christ it selfe, al­beit then it were not, notwithstanding that it was truely and indeede geuen vntoo the Fathers in the Sacramentes and sealed vppe in them: then that the Fathers were iustified and in very deed sanctified in spirite, by the righteousnes of his fleshe which yet was not borne. For this is the whole summe of the be­nifites of Christe. Furthermore when thou thinkest that the fathers were made partakers of those fruites which flowe vntoo vs out of the fleshe of Christe (or out of Christe accordyng [Page] to the fleshe) shutting out that same per­taking of Christe himselfe and of those thinges which he afterwardes suffered for our sake, thou doest euen as if reaso­ning of this same bodily life, thou woul­dest haue them too bee nourished with meate, who notwithstanding doe not in any sort receiue the substance of meats.

76. Question.

What therefore in summe sayest thou, is to be determined concerning this matter.

To witte, that both before God him­selfe promising, and before the eyes of our fayth Iesus Christe was alwayes present, and also the whole mysterye of performing our saluatiō: the w ^c he in ve­ry deed bestowed vpon all beleeuers, & al beleeuers as wel in the simple word, as in the Sacramēts added to the word, truely and effectually embraced. For Iohn. 8. 56. Abraham with the eyes of faith saw the day of the Lorde, which is a subsisting of thinges which yet were not, that is, to which now after a certayne sort those thinges existe, which in verie deede are [Page] not. Notwithstanding I graunt the thing it selfe, that is to say, that Christ himselfe was not in act geuē vnto them according too the fleshe, or (as they speake) indeed but by right onely.

But what meaneth this thing?

I wil speake therefore more plainly, and now I say in deede, that Christ ge­uen with all his giftes was both signi­fied by the simple worde, and in the sa­cramentes of the new Testament, and offered vnto vs, to be spiritually by faith as wee haue sayde, layde holde vppon, too righteousnesse, sanctification, and euerlasting life, & that the Fathers had right to the selfe same Christ that was to be borne, and to all his giftes, bothe by the simple word & also by the promi­ses added to the same word: & y ^t there­fore the fathers were euē then truely ac­compted the mēbers of Christ that was to bee borne, through the power of the same spirite & by the same faith, & like­wise were indeed truely iustified & sanc­tified in him to come: to conclude that [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] theyr condition differeth from ours, not indeed: but as they speak in the scholes, according to more and lesse. For Christ is one, & the same things which he hath doone for our sake are the same which wee looke for from him, and our faith is the same whether it respect things to come, or those things that yet are not, or those thinges that are already past.

77. Question

When I consider the maner of spee­ches which belong vntoo the Sacra­ments, mee thinkes that I find some­what to obiect against thee, touching those things that thou hast spoken, of the signification of the signes & of the thing signified, and also as touching that which thou hast intreated of our partaking with Christ.

Those Phrases of speech not onely Sacramentall but also figuratiue are partly proper, and partly borrowes.

78. Question.

Which are proper?

Those be proper, which distinctly at­tribute [Page] that too the signe, which belon­geth to the signe, and that to the thing, which belongeth to the thing: as when Circumcision is called the signe of the couenant. Gen. 17. 11. Also the signe and seale of y ^e righteousnes of faith. Ro. 4. 11. And the blood of the Lambe, the signe. Exo. 12. 13. And the sabboth, the signe of calling too memory the creation of the world: & sealing the peculiar cōsecration of the people of Israel. Exod. 31. 13. 17. And those same twoo censures, a signe calling intoo their remembraunce that same conspiracie of Dathan & Abiron. Num. 16 38. So the outward ministery of man, considered a parte from the in­warde, is said to be nothing. 1. Cor. 3. 7. So the outwarde baptisme of water, is properly distinguished frō the inwarde efficacie of the spirit. 1. Pet. 3. 21.

But I finde in no place, that this same worde [Signe] is attribu­ted too Baptisme or too the Lordes supper.

Why then, denye them too bee [Page] Sacramentes. For Sacramentes vn­doubtedly are signes. Yea, and the Pa­pists themselues, do grant that the sub­stance of water and the Sacramentall rites of Baptisme are signes: & in that same Sacrament of theirs of the Aul­tar, they do at least appoynt the formes for signes. Further, the thing it selfe is most euident, that that is true which I­renaeus witnesseth (that I may passe o­uer the other fathers) that they consist of one earthly & of an heauenly mater, whereof it must needes bee that that be the signe of this.

79. Question.

And what are those same Sacra­mentall or figuratiue formes?

First of all, they are those thinges to which the name of the Element is attributed too the thing signified, as when the Lambe is said to be the passe­ouer. Exod. 12. 11.

And yet there be some which say, that the Pesach or Passeouer is pro­perly spoken of the passing it selfe.

Go to, be it so. But yet verely the passyng it selfe can not be eaten, there­fore they must in that place at the least graunt, that the Lambe it selfe is called the passeouer, where the passeouer is sayde to be prepared & eaten. So Christ is called of Iohn the Lambe of GOD, and is sayde of Saint Paule to bee the passeouer. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Christians are one bread. 1. Cor. 10. 17.

80. Question.

These thinges verely satisfie mee. Go forwarde, I pray thee declare vn­to me the other sortes of sacramental speeches.

The other sorte is directly contrary to this, whereby the name of the thing it selfe is attributed to the Element. So the stone set vp by Iacob, is called Be­thel. Gen. 28. 22. So the seuen kyne and the seuen eares are seuen yeares. Gen. 41. 27. So the name of Iehouah in in­numerable places is attributed to the Arke of the couenaunt, yea and to the very Altar of Moses. Exod. 17. 15. So [Page] by the name of the tongue of Canaan is vnderstoode the profession of pure reli­gion. Esai. 19. 18. So the name of the ho­ly Ghost is attributed to the Doue. Iohn 1. 33. To bee shorte, so the Rocke was Christ.

Yea, but that same bodily Rocke was not saide to bee Christe, but that same spirituall Rocke.

I knowe very well that same sophi­sticall startinghole, as though forsooth this were spoken of the thing it selfe, and not of the signe. But what will these foo­lishe Sophisters answeare, if I shoulde aske them, whether Paul yet ment not that same Rocke, whereout that ryuer of waters flowed? Surely they coulde answeare nothing whereby their sophi­strie should not be easily conuinced. For they must needes come to this poynte, that they must confesse, that the name of spirituall Rocke, was in respecte of that very naturall Rocke attributed to Christ in respect of the bodily Rocke, (that is as they them selues interprete [Page] it) considered spiritually and so far forth as it was a figure. Therfore they snarle them selues in their owne snares, or els they must graunt that Christe was cal­led the Rocke, because he was shadow­ed by a spiritual significatiō taken from the same Rocke. But what will they doe with these wordes of Saint Augu­stine, in his 45. Treatise vppon Iohn? Loe the signes changed, Fayth remai­ning, there Christ is the Rocke, to vs Christ is that same that is set foorth vpon the Altar: and if thou looke vp­pon the visible fourme, it is another thing: but if vpon the sensible signifi­cation, they dranke the same spiritual drinke. And in the 102. Epistle, some tyme the thyng which signifieth, ta­keth the name of that thing which it signifieth. For so the rocke was Christ, because it signifieth Christ. To con­clude the same interpreteth the spiritual Rocke mentioned in the 77. Psalme: not Christ him selfe (as they doe) but suche a Rocke as shoulde signifie some spiritual thing.

Therefore proceede on.

So to conclude, that bread is sayde to bee the body giuen for vs: and that same cuppe to be the blood shead for vs.

But who doth so expound this?

Amongest the rest, Theodoret in his Eranista by expresse wordes, wher­of we shall entreate more at large in his proper place.

81. Question.

And is there any more?

The third kinde of figuratiue sacra­mentall speache is that, whereby the effect of the thing signified is attribu­ted to the outwarde signes or instru­mentes. So it is sayde that the tree of life was planted in Paradise, and the tree of the knowledge both of good and euill. And yet was neyther life nor knowledge in those same trees, as if thou shouldest cal a tree the Ague, which either causeth an Ague, or els driueth it away: but those same trees were onely the effectuall signes of these same ef­fectes. [Page] By the same figure Circumcisi­on is called the couenant whereof onely it was a signe, as God him self expoun­deth it. Gen. 17. 11. & 14. And that same cupp is called the newe Testament in his blood. Luke 22. 20. So Baptisme is called the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3. 5. So the Church is sayde to bee purged by the washing of water, Ephes. 5. 26. So the outward worde which be­ing onely the Chariot as it were of the diuine power, is in many places sayd to be the word of life and the incorruptible seede: and to it is attributed, both clen­sing and sanctification. So the sacrifi­ces, are in many places called attone­ments, when notwithstanding the very blood of Goates and Oxen cannot sanc­tifie any. So also the priests themselues are sayde to sanctifie and to make an at­tonement for sinnes. Leuit. 16. 30. When as it onely belongeth vnto God to for­giue sinnes and to make cleane. So the Ministers of the Gospell are sayde to binde and to lose, Matth. 18. 18. And to forgiue sinnes. Iohn. 20. 25. yea also to saue them selues & to saue others. 1. Tim. [Page] 4. 16. Of which matter if it please thee, thou mayest see Augustine in his booke of questions vppon Leuiticus, Chapter 84.

82. Question.

Is there yet remayning any other kinde of sacramentall figures?

There remayneth the fourth, quyte contrary to that same third kynde, wher­by it is brought to passe, on the contra­ry that that which is proper vnto the fignes is drawen vnto the thing signifi­ed. And hereof commeth that same in­warde Circumcision, or, of the hearte. So the fleshe or the bodie of the sonne of man, is said to be eaten and his blood to be dronke, which beyng bodily acti­ons, can not bee vnderstoode otherwyse then improperly of the thing signified, that is to say, of Christ him selfe, offered either in the simple worde or in the Sa­cramentes, least as Saint Augustine very well sayeth, a foule and haynous thyng, to wyt, the sauadge and barba­rous eatyng of mans fleshe seeme to bee commaunded. And heereof come [Page] these same vsuall maner of speeches so often in the Fathers, wherein it is sayd that the body of our Lorde lyeth vppon the Altar, yea also that it is seene, hand­led, goeth into the mouth, is made, fal­leth vpon the grounde, is consumed.

83. Question.

Therefore makest thou it a meta­phoricall bodie, and a metaphoricall Supper?

In deede suche are the filthy slaun­ders of certaine men, which we wil con­fute in their proper place: For nowe I entreate generally of the Sacraments. In meane tyme knowe this, that wee neyther fayne any other bodie to Christ then that same true body giuen for vs; nor transforme that same most holy acti­on into those same monstrous Chimeres, but onely wee say this (followyng the proportion of Fayth) that that same ve­ry partakyng of Christ him selfe, which is altogether of the mynd and of Faith, (for this is the meate of the mynd, & not of the belly) is not properly, but meta­phorically [Page] declared, by those same bodi­ly actions of eating and drinking.

84. Question.

Then is it all one with thee, to be­leeue, and spiritually to eate Christ?

Thou causest me yet againe to stray from my purpose. If thou take to be­leeue, for the very action of fayth it self, I consent vnto thee. But if thou take it for the very habite of fayth, then euen like as thou doest distinguish the teethe the instrument of eating, from the eating it selfe: so it must needes bee that thou discerne fayth it selfe, from that appre­hension of Christ through fayth, which is the spirituall eating.

Proceede on.

I haue nowe finished those thinges which belong vnto those same Sacra­mentall fourmes of speaking, aswell those that are proper, as those that are figuratiue.

85. Question.

But when thou shalt say that the Sa­cramentes [Page] were added vnto the sim­ple word, to the end, the more plain­ly to shew foorth the promises, ma­ny men meruaile that these figura­tiue speeches are vsed in the Sacra­mentes, in which the speech ought rather to be most proper and most plaine, least any should be deceiued.

Here I pray thee marke what bold rashnesse the spirite of error hath in sclaundering, and what power it hath (when it pleaseth God) in perswading. For these men affirme, that the figura­tiue speeches are more obscure then those that are proper: but contrary­wise they themselues also teach & giue manie preceptes concerning this mat­ter, that Oratours doe verie well vse figures, not too darken, but to set out and make more playne their speeche. Now they are verie well vsed, when they both adorne that that wee woulde haue spoken with a certaine dignitie and grace, and better infixe it in the mindes of the hearers, then if any man should vse a plaine and simple speeche. [Page] Now forasmuch as the Sacraments are therefore instituted that they may leade our vnderstanding too an other thing, which by Gods ordinance they signifie from that which they are by na­ture: or rather, that I may vse the words of S. Augustine against Maximinus. Lib. 3. cap, 18. that wee marke, not what they are, but what they set out and shewe, because they are signes of thinges shewing one thing and signi­fying another: who seeth not that the nature and vse of the Sacramentes is much better fixed in the minde of the hearer, when the signes are sayd to bee the thing it selfe that they signi­fie?

Let vs set downe for example sake, that we may dwell still vpon the former example that the Maior or Ma­gistrate of a Towne or Citie of whom possession is giuen vnto thee of some house deliuering thee a key vpon this condition, and speaking vnto thee after this manner, this keye is that same house standing in that place, which [Page] I deliuer into thy handes, for to bee vsed and enioyed of thee: woulde not this speeche much more confirme thee, then if hee shoulde say, this keye bee a signe vntoo thee, that I put thee into the possession of that house? Now this reason is set out by Theodoret. in his Eranista in these woords, Christ would (sayth he) that they that would bee partakers of these diuine my­steries (for he speaketh of the Supper of the Lorde) should take heede not to consider the nature of the thinges which they see, but through this change of names (to witte whereby it is brought to passe, that the name of the thing signified is giuen vntoo the signe) they shoulde giue credite vntoo that change which is wrought by grace: That is, they shoulde consider that thing, not as it is by nature, but howe by Gods com­maundement it is vsed too signifie, that thing. And Augustine in the fiftieth seauen Question vppon Leuiti­cus, [Page] Thinges (sayth he) which signifie somewhat, are woont to bee signified by the name of that thing which they signifie. Hence is that say­ing, the rock was Christ. For he sayd not the rock signified Christ, but as it were that he was that, that in very deed he was not by substance, but by signification. But of these thinges more in another place, where wee will so intreate of set purpose of the right vnderstanding of the woordes of the in­stitution of the Lordes Supper, that we will also confute the contrary expo­sitions.

86. Question.

I would therefore thou shouldest set foorth vnto me what the vse is of these same fourmes of speeche con­cerning Sacraments so expounded of thee.

We are by this meanes taught, that we attribute neither lesse nor more to the Sacramentes, then is meete. Now they attribute lesse vnto thē, thā is meet, who wil haue them only to be certaine [Page] bare remēbrances, shutting out a dores both the giuing & receiuing of the thing it selfe: the which opinion is herein ta­ken away, because that the name of the signe is attributed to the thing signifi­ed, or the name of the effect it self to the signe it selfe, and againe the name of the signe to the thing it selfe signified or too the effect thereof, as wee haue shewed by those examples alledged. They also attribute muche lesse then these to the Sacraments, who wil onely haue them to bee badges of outwarde profession: which opinion is altogether vngodly, and by the same reason is ouerthrowen. Nowe wee are taught againe by these proper kynde of speaches to attribute no more vnto the Sacraments then is meete, & to shunne that miserable bon­dage (as Sainct Augustine speaketh more then once) whereby it is brought to passe, that the signes are taken for the thinges signified in his third Booke of Christian doctrine. Chap. 5. and 7.

87. Question.

But I pray thee, howe many Sa­cramentes thinkest thou to bee insti­tuted [Page] for the vniuersall Christiā church?

Two, Baptisme, and the Lordes Supper.

There are which rehearse manye moe, yea and that amongest those which haue departed from the Anti­christian Romayne Church.

I graunt it: but yet the Papistes gayne nothing, which take this occasi­on to slaunder vs, seeing the most Pa­pistical Diuines haue not yet agreed, concernyng the number of sacraments, but amongst vs there is no stryfe in the matter it selfe, as we shall shewe in his place.

Let vs agree vppon this, howe farre I am to proceede in demaun­ding.

Although this were rather the parte of the asker, then of the answearer, yet notwithstandyng forasmuche as it so pleaseth thee, I signifie vnto thee that [Page] I am content that the handlyng of the contrary sentence being differred, thou heare what seemeth vnto mee concer­nyng euery one of these questions: so notwithstandyng that I may answeare shortly, as the matter requireth to the cō trary reasons, so farre forth as we may waye all and singular thinges, whiche are sayd for the confirmation of the con­trary opinions.

88. Question.

Admyt that wee haue but onely two suche Sacramentes, I demaund of thee in the first place, what Baptis­me is.

This woorde properly declareth dipping into the water, & by consequent washyng away: of which sorte many were instituted in the lawe, Hebr. 9. 10. to whiche were added afterwardes the pharasaical washings, wherof mention is made in the 7. of Marke, vers 4. Now by the figure This figure is a chaunging or putting of a neare name in signification for the naturall name it selfe. Antonomasia it is takē for the Sacrament, by which wee are [Page] are openly professed to Christ. But by translation it setteth foorth the afflicti­ons of the godly and some greate and greeuous calamities, yea and the crosse it selfe, as it is taken. Luke. 12. 50. peraduenture fetching the Metaphor from thence, for that in many places of the Psalmes especially are vnder­stoode by the name of waters and of gulphes, miseries, wherewith a man is as it were swalowed vp. To be short, it is taken for the powring foorth of the giftes of the holy Ghost, as Acts. 1. 5. and for the doctrine of Iohn who first baptised: as Acts 18. 25. & 19. 3.

89. Question

Howe therefore doest thou define baptisme taken for the first Sacramēt of the Church of Christ?

I define it to be an holy action com­maunded of Christe to the Church, in which by a fitte proportion of signes, we doe spiritually and through Fayth after a certayne sorte put on Christe himself, with all his giftes necessary to salua­tion, and are therein washed with him, [Page] and dye with him, are buryed and ryse agayne, and by which our mutuall fel­lowshyp in Christ is ratified.

90. Question.

And which are these signes?

The Elementall signe is water. But the Sacramentall rytes are three: the dipping into the water, the remayning in the water, and the commyng out of the water agayne.

91. Question.

But there are many moe Elements, and many moe rytes in Baptisme vsed in olde tyme.

I answeare out of Cyprian, that we must not marke what any hath done be­fore vs, or what any haue thought meet to bee done: but what Christe who was before all hath done first him selfe, and hath deliuered vnto others to bee done. But of these thinges wee will entreate heereafter when wee shall come to the [Page] confutation of the contrary opinions.

92. Question.

What representeth the water, and what is the analogie or proportion thereof, with the thing signified?

It signifieth the very blood of Christ, and by the figure Synechdoche whole Christ him selfe, who by the sheadyng foorth of his blood, hath both washed a­way that same naturall malice and cor­ruptiō that was in vs, & hath satisfied for our sinnes. Now the proportion of wa­ter beyng an Element ordeined for the washyng away of filthinesse, doeth of it selfe agree with the blood of Christ, by the sheadding forth wherof onely, all the filthinesses of sinne are washed away.

93. Question.

What are those same three rytes or ceremonyes?

To wyt, that we must be as it were dipped by a spirituall power and man­ner, in the very blood of the Sonne of GOD: by the force whereof that same wasshyng awaye of sinnes by [Page] little and little is brought to passe, that so at the length we may go away clean­sed: as they that are defiled specially with those same spottes which cannot easily bee washed of, they must bee so long washed with water, vntill they receiue their first cleanesse.

94. Question.

Forsomuch as that also was signifi­ed by the purifiynges of the law, and that same benefite also was truely perfourmed in Christe nowe too bee borne, too them who lawfully and rightly did vse the same, what neede was there that they shoulde bee abo­lished, that baptisme might bee ap­pointed in their place?

First it behoued that they should be abolished; that he might be beleued to be come already whō they shadowed too come afterwardes. Againe foras­muche as they were additions vnto the Sacrifices for sinnes, they ought too bee abolished together with thē. Lastly, their repetition or often repentance did shew their imperfection, and therefore [Page] it must needes bee that another wa­shing must come in place which should not be done againe too one person, and which is the Sacrament of that wa­shing which was once performed for euer.

95. Question.

But what thinkest thou of that same ancient sprinkling of the blood?

I thinke that that did more grossely expresse & represent the blood of Christ to come, but yet lesse fitly, forasmuch as blood doth not take away spottes, but rather doth spotte thinges that are al­ready spotted.

96. Question.

What doest thou meane by the worde [of putting on?

The Apostle so speaketh that he may shewe that that same power of the spi­rite is ioyned to baptisme, whereby it is brought too passe that wee are as it were knit & engraffed into Christ him­selfe, so as we growe vp into one bodie together with him which is the chiefest [Page] effect of baptisme. Gal. 3. ver. 27. And certainely it seemeth vnto me that this same manner of speaking sprang from hence, that those that were growne in yeeres beyng to be baptised should put of theyr Garmentes that eyther they might put on others: or else beyng be­come newe men, might take them a­gayne. To which Analogie or propor­tion the same Apostle hath respect. Col. 3. 9. Ephe. 4. 22.

97. Question.

What doest thou signifie by the word [of washing?

The double effect of this putting on, one, whereby this naturall corruption which Paule calleth sinne, sinning is a­bolished in vs: the other whereby the fruites thereof, that is to say sinnes, are forgeuen vs, or rather are not imputed, the punishment which we deserued for them, beyng satisfied by Christ: & also his obedience beyng put in the place of them, whereby he fulfilled the lawe for vs.

98. Question

But too what ende are wee sayde too die, to bee buryed, and too rise againe into the death, buriall and re­surrection of Christ?

By that meanes the Apostle himself beyng the Author. Rom. 6. 4. &c. is de­clared both the proportion and effect of those same Sacramentall rites. For so we are taught to place our whole fayth in Christ alone, who died, was buried & rose agayne from death too euerlasting life for vs, inasmuche as hee is our bro­ther. The dipping therefore into water setteth before our eyes that same bottō ­lesse gulf of Gods iudgement, by which for our sinnes layde vppon him, Christ is as it were swallowed vppe. The re­mayning in the water, in what sorte or howe shorte soeuer it be, doth as it were set him before our eyes to be looked vp­pon, holden in his Graue as it were, by the chaynes of death. But comming out of the water, is as it were a liue­ly picture of his victorie, whereby it came to passe that beyng dead hee o­uercame death, and beeyng buried, hee [Page] ouercame corruption, that we our selues also beyng engraffed into him by faith, (of which engraffting also Baptisme is a pleadge) wee are become parta­kers of y ^e same power, wherby he perfor­med all those things firste in himselfe.

99. Question.

But yet that same old man, to wit, corruption was not in him: neyther the fruits therof, that is to say, sinnes.

In very deed none of both these were in him, because he was voyde of al vice, & most holy euen frō the very momēt of his conception. For hee came to take a­way sinne. Yet notwithstanding he had both those things vpō him, taking mor­tality & all infirmities brought into our nature through sinne, except that sinne it self, and to be short the punishment laid vpon him, whereby wee are reconciled. Nowe these rites doe teache that all these thinges are communicated vntoo vs in this Sacrament, our corruption dying in vs, beyng planted as it were intoo the death of Christe himselfe, and our sinnes also dying with him: [Page] that same stay answearing Christes bu­riall which is betweene the dipping in and the comming out, liuely paynteth out vnto vs the proceeding of the pow­er and benefite of Christes death by lit­tle & little declaring it self in vs. Final­ly, there foloweth the cōming out of the water agayne, signifiyng our newe state and condition, the first beyng abolished, and aunswearing to the resurrection of Christ: who as he rose agayne intoo e­uerlasting life, death and mortalitie be­yng ouercome and swallowed vp in the very graue, so at the length hee will woorke the selfe same thinges in vs, whereof we haue now receiued the ear­nest and pledge.

100. Question.

Now I vnderstande why baptisme is called the washing of regeneration, why we are baptised for the forgiue­nesse of sinnes, why the church is said to be cleansed by the washing of wa­ter, and to be short, why baptisme is called of Augustine, the Sacrament of faith, and of Tertullian, the sealing of faith. But yet I vnderstand not that [Page] which thou diddest adde, concerning that mutual consociation and felow­ship which we haue in Christ.

This also is an excellent effecte of baptisme, but yet a secondarie effect, to wit, depending vpon that same former. For that same forme of baptizing intoo one and the selfe same Christ, doth both separate Christians from al other men, and also ioyne them together, as it were one bodie vnder one and the selfe same heade amongest themselues, as the A­postle speaketh. 1. Cor. 12. 13.

101. Question.

I woulde also knowe somewhat of those correspondent figures of bap­tisme, And first what that word [...] meaneth.

A [...] are called figures correspō ­dent to figures, the name of figures bee­yng largely taken, wherby is declared that some Sacrament is not otherwise properly so called (that is an holy action commaunded to the whole Churche as a certayne ordinary thing, which is the [Page] seale of the promise of euerlasting life) but some certayn thing that God hath simply appoynted also for this end, that he might signifie some other thing to be fulfilled in the newe Testament. So in that Noah was saued out of the wa­ters, and by the waters themselues in the Arke, it was a Type or figure of Baptisme, wherby the Churche, shut vp as it were in Christe, is saued. So Israel passing through the Sea, and comming safe thorowe a Cloude from Heauen shrowding them, it represen­ted the Mysterye of the same Bap­tisme.

102. Question.

But why doest thou vse the worde [of sealing.

That I may meete with the slaun­ders of them, that say that we take bap­tisme, onely as a token, or rather onely as it were a difference, whereby Chri­stians are distinguished from them that bee no Christians: forasmuche as this sacrament succeeded Circumcisiō, which was not onely a signe, but also a [Page] seale of righteousnes by fayth.

103. Question

I woulde therefore thou shoul­dest shewe vnto mee particularly the causes, the partes and the effectes of Baptisme.

The efficient cause is Christ. The outward & visible matter is water w ^t the sacramental rites: the inwarde & inuisi­ble matter is Christe himselfe, with his gifts. The outward forme is the maner of administration it selfe, ordeined of Christ himselfe: the inwarde forme the baptisme of the holy Ghost, the essencial parts are the signes & the things signifi­ed. The whole partes, is the Element; Christ himself with his gifts, the action and the worde.

104. Question.

But what is this worde?

Teach yee al, baptising them in the name of the father, the Sonne, & the ho­ly Ghost. Mat. 28. 19. Preach y ^e Gospel to euery creature: he that shall beleeue and be baptized shalbe saued. Mark. 16. 15. & 16.

105. Question

What meaneth [in the name?

Hereby is declared, that Baptisme is a solemne vowe, whereby hee that is baptized doeth wholly vowe himselfe too one GOD in Trinity: also a so­lemne action in which GOD witnes­seth, that he receiueth him that is bap­tised intoo his owne hande, that in very deede this same fourme is as it were an Epicomie or Summarie of the whole Christian faith, with the solempne sea­ling thereof.

106. Question.

And yet notwithstanding it semeth that the Apostles changed somwhat in that same forme, as beyng sayd to haue baptized in the name of Christ.

By these woordes it is not shewed after what maner the Apostles bapti­zed. For who can probably thinke that the Apostles in that expresse prescripti­on of our Maister, in euident and plaine woordes commaunded, did chaunge any thing at all: And it is most plaine [Page] throughout the whole Ecclesiasticall Hystorie, that that forme was alwaies kept.

107. Question.

But to what end is that same, [into the name of Christ?

To witte, that the ende it selfe, the fruites it selfe, and to bee short, the very matter it selfe of Baptisme might be declared.

But what are the endes of Bap­tisme?

This shall very well be vnderstoode by the effectes.

And what are the effectes of Bap­tisme?

If thou call Baptisme that onely which the Minister doeth, the effect of Baptisme is nothing.

This seemeth a harde saying to me.

And yet so Paule speaketh, when he sayeth that hee which planteth, and hee 1. Cor. 3. 7. which watereth are nothing. But the case standeth thus. In very deede the ministery of men is somewhat, yea in­deede it is that very thing, that whosoe­uer despiseth, despiseth GOD him­selfe. But as I haue sayd before, so God Luke. 10. 16. vseth the ministerye of men, that the whole woorking power resteth in God himselfe, neyther doth the same here fal out as in them whom God vseth to the maintenance of this mortal life of men. For fathers in begetting of children are suche instrumentes of GOD, that the engendering power of the bo­dye, and the receauing power of pow­ring in lyfe, is engraffed in Fathers and Mothers, and the same GOD hath geuen his power both to meates for nourishment, and too medicines for curing of diseases. But in those which concerne the Saluation of men lost in themselues, hee so vseth theyr woorke whom hee appoynteth too the woorde of saluation, and too the admi­nistration [Page] of the Sacramentes, that besides the declaration of his will, from whome they are sent, they bring to passe nothing at all. Therefore the ef­fect of the minister is this, that pouring forth water, he wetteth him that is to be baptised: but now the only effect of wa­ter poured foorth, whether it bee com­mon water or sacramentall, appointed to an holy vse, if it be simply conside­red in it selfe, is, that his bodie who is sprinkled with it, be made wet and wa­shed. But he which baptiseth inward­ly by the spirite, (that is to say by his diuine power) dooth alone perfourme farre other thinges: to witte, altogether diuine and heauenly thinges (notwith­standing the ministery of men come be­tweene) to witte the forgiuenesse of sinnes, by free vndeserued imputation and regeneration which is the effect of the holy Ghost dwelling in vs, and by little and little abolishing sinne in vs.

108. Question.

Doest thou therefore distinguish betweene sinne and sinnes?

Yea, what else? For the Apostle is woont to call that naturall corruption of the whole man, sinne, or else the flesh set agaynst the spirite. Iohn. 3. 6. and of­tentymes in other places: which also by it selfe is sinne, when it dissenteth from the Lawe of God, and inforceth to sinne, whervpon it is called sinne sin­ning Rom. 7. 13. Now all the trans­gressions of the commaundementes of GOD are called sinnes, that is to say those which sinne bringeth foorth in vs, euen as a husband begetteth children by his wife. Rom. 7. 5.

109. Question.

What therefore doest thou call remission of sinnes.

That same great benifite whereby it is brought to passe, that the satisfacti­on and obedience of Christ being impu­ted vnto vs, those transgressions are not only layd too our charge, but also in their place the fulfilling of the Law, perfourmed by Christ is set and ap­pointed.

110. Question.

But what callest thou regenerati­on?

Another gift of the same Christ, whereby it is brought too passe, that that corruption both in respect of the guiltinesse of it, and in respect of it selfe onely is not imputed vnto vs, but also is corrected by litle and little in vs.

111. Question.

But doeth that same power of the spirit by little and little abolishing the old man in vs, and creating the newe, begin euen from the very first moment of Baptisme?

Fye vpon this errour also of the worke wrought. The fruite of Bap­tisme therefore beginneth in that mo­ment or time wherein fayth beginneth, which in very deede sometime goeth before Baptisme, as appeared in Cor­nelius. Act. 10. 47. But sōtime foloweth Baptisme, as in children that are bap­tised sometime slowlyer, and some­times later, as they grow and waxe, and [Page] and are of the number of the elect. Fi­nally the fruite of Baptisme is not to be restrayned to that same moment wherein it is ministred to any, as ney­ther is the fruite of the simple woorde, the seed lying so long hid in the mindes of the hearers, till that by the vertue of fayth wrought, sometimes later and sometimes flower, shewing it selfe, it fructifieth.

112. Question.

Baptisme therefore doeth not a­bolish onely sinnes past.

Yea rather the fruite of baptisme is spreade foorth through out the whole life of beleeuers. For that same grosse errour was the cause that many defer­red baptisme vntill death: which is a great wonder that it was not more vehemently handled of learned bishops.

113. Question.

Doest thou not thinke that origi­nall sinne is taken away by baptisme?

Surely I thinke that it is taken away, concerning the guiltinesse, so [Page] that Fayth be present. But the vice it selfe although it dye by litle and litle in the beleeuers, yet notwithstandyng in deede remayneth: and it must needes be sinne, and be so called, because whatsoe­uer resisteth the wil and spirite of God, must of necessitie be vitious.

114. Question.

But is this same Sacrament of bap­tisme, an instrument altogether, and absolutely necessary to obtaine salua­tion in Christ?

No, not so.

And yet not onely the late writers, but also many auncient fathers haue thought it so farre foorth at the least necessary, that they haue esteemed, those destituted of the light of the life of heauen, which were not lightned with that same outwarde baptisme of the Church.

Concerning this opinion, from whēce flowed that same shameful errour of the Clinicks, and Baptisme of Midwiues [Page] we shall see afterwardes. Nowe I say that the Sacrament of Baptisme is thus farre necessary, that hee that neg­lecteth it, doeth also depryue him selfe (as muche as is in him) of the benefite of Christ, the which sinne notwithstan­ding as all others, may bee taken away by true repentance: but that he can not seeme to be a contemner of Baptisme, who through no negligence of his, much lesse fault, doeth not obteyne Baptisme, in that order which is instituted in the Church.

115. Question.

But doest thou think that the bap­tisme administred by Iohn, and after­wardes of the Apostles by the com­maundement of Christ was one and the same?

I would wilingly that this question were omitted as at this day vnprofita­ble. Notwithstandyng because it ma­keth for the clearer interpretation of certayne places of the holy scripture: and from thence the Anabaptists seeke somewhat, wherevnder to shroude their [Page] pestilent opiniō, I refuse not also some­what to entreate of this thing, when we shall come to the confutations of the cō ­trary opinions. In the meane tyme I say that in very deede the Baptisme first ministred of Iohn, and afterwarde by the commaundement of Christ was one and the same, albeit, it seemeth to bee so muche more plentifully perfourmed in that Apostolicall Baptisme then in that of Iohns, as the doctrine is more plaine of the Apostles then the doctrine of Iohn, and yet in very deede the same.

116. Question.

Nowe I would haue certaine que­stions pertayning vnto this matter distinctly set foorth vnto me, and first whome thou thinkest fit to be bapti­zed. Fot there are who thinke that all are to be baptized without differēce, so they resist it not.

This foule errour flowed out of two fountaynes. For they thought that the beginnyng of our saluation was from Baptisme: and further that Baptisme saued vs, euen by the woorke wrought, [Page] as they speake.

117. Question.

Others thinke that those onely are to bee baptized, that are of yeares of discretion, and are indeede suche as make confession of a true Fayth, by the example of the Eunuch. Actes 8. 37.

The errour of these men sprange from thence, that they thought Bap­tisme to be ministred in vayne, vnlesse Fayth presently went before Bap­tisme.

What? hast thou not sayde before that the thinges signified in the Sa­cramentes, are layde holde vppon by the onely hande of Fayth?

So it is. But that Fayth may fol­low the Sacrament, yea though it were ministred many yeares before, is no more absurde, then if I shoulde say that (which wee thinke also we proue dayly) to wyt, that it oftentymes commeth to passe, that the thinges which we haue [Page] contemned when they were spoken vnto vs, that beeyng marked, they beginne to profite vs, yea many yeares after, and sometymes in the very last breath of our lyfe.

118. Question.

Whome then thinkest thou meete to be baptized?

All they who can rightly shewe the conueyances of the couenaunt, for the sealyng whereof Baptisme is insti­tuted.

119. Question.

But who doe rightly shewe them?

They who (if they bee growen in yeares) testifie theyr consent.

Wylt thou not then admyt any of yeares of discretion, vnles they playnely professe a right Fayth?

None in deede. For what els should I probably beleeue, that I can seale in them?

120. Question.

To what end then wilt thou admyt children?

Neyther will I admyt all infantes: for neither will I receiue the children of the Turkes, nor of the Iewes.

Why so?

Because they are not comprehended in the tables of the couenant.

But they may be instructed in Chri­stianitie.

Why, let them bee instructed or be­come Catechistes: and then at length let them be baptized.

121. Question.

I coulde easily graunt this vnto thee, concerning the Turks children, and the children of all those which were neuer comprehended in the co­uenaunt, [Page] but wylt thou recken the Iewes with these?

Yea, but after an vnlike maner. For they indeede were neuer comprehended in the couenaunt, but nowe the peo­ple of the Iewes, retectyng the Me­diatour, are fallen from the couenaunt, the Gentiles beeyng engraffed in their place.

122. Question.

But is it sufficient (as thou thinkest) to be borne of the faithful that none bee reiected and put off from Bap­tisme?

So I thinke. For the wordes of the couenaunt are plaine, I wil be thy God Gen. 17. 7. and the God of thy seede. Nowe by the name of seede, the Apostle teacheth that all the Gentiles are conteyned, fol­lowyng the fayth of Abraham. Gal. 3. 8. And the same Apostle also playnely sayeth, that those children are holy, which are borne, either of the parentes being a beleeuer: by which sanctificati­on 1. Cor. 7. 14. no other thing can bee vnderstoode [Page] then that same comprehension in the co­uenaunt: whereby those that are holy, are discerned from those that are pro­phane.

123. Question.

But the example of Esau doth de­clare, and also daily experience doeth confirme it, that many begotten also euen of those that bee most holy, doe nothing at all belong vnto the coue­naunt.

Many also of those that are growen in yeares, professing Fayth with theyr mouths, are hypocrites. But those same particular iudgementes are to bee left vnto God. But that we should general­ly hope wel of all those which are borne of the faithful, both the indefinite forme of the couenaunt doeth commaunde vs, and loue doeth warne vs.

124. Question.

But without Fayth it is impossible to please God.

It is one thing for a man to please God in very deede, another thing to be [Page] appointed by this secret decree of God (as I may say) to this good wil of God. For that indeede is brought to passe in those that are of the yeares of discretiō, their fayth comming betwene: but faith springeth from y ^t same decree of Gods good will. For why do we beleeue, but bicause it so pleaseth him? we please him therefore also beleeuing: and we should not indeed beleeue, vnles first (in the or­der of causes and tyme) wee had freely and vndescruedly pleased him.

But why doest thou adde in those that are of the yeares of discretion?

Because there is another respect of children dying before they are taught, for as muche as Fayth after the ordi­nary manner, is by hearing: and ex­traordinarily by the onely inward moti­on of the holy Ghost, of which the one cānot agree vnto infants by no place of scripture, neither canst thou gather it by any litle coniecture. For faith (whether it arise by hearing, or extraordinarily) ne­cessarily [Page] presupposeth knowledge of the free promise in Christ, which he apply­eth vnto him selfe that beleeueth: which by no maner of meane can fall out and agree into infantes.

Howe then shal wee think that in­fantes are acceptable vnto God, that they shoulde bee reckoned of him in the couenant of the Church, and that therefore the seale it selfe of the coue­naunt shoulde not bee denyed vnto them?

First I say, probably that they are to be thought acceptable vnto God, by euerlastyng election in Christe, of which this is a testimony sufficient e­nough, that he would haue them to bee borne of godly parentes. Nowe the fit­nesse of this testimony (leauyng vnto God those same particular secret iudge­mentes) doeth appeare, out of those playne wordes of the couenaunt, I will be thy God, & the God of thy seede. Wherevppon also the Apostle gathe­reth, that euen they are holy, who are [Page] borne eyther of their Parentes beeyng a beleeuer: Moreouer they please God also in the person of their Godly Pa­rentes, euen to a thousande generati­ons, as God witnesseth in the lawe. Exod. 20.

125. Question.

But this is a promyse of the lawe, and we entreate of the couenaunt of the Gospell.

I graunt it, but thou must remem­ber that all the promises of the Lawe, in Christ, who for vs fulfilled that same condition of the Lawe, are become pro­mises of the Gospell, and confirmed to all beleeuers.

126. Question.

But thou doest not accompt these infantes in the number of beleeuers, whereupon it foloweth that no place is left to infantes for this same pro­myse of the Lawe.

Naye, that foloweth not. For the fayth of the Parentes from whome he is borne, doeth come betweene.

Wilt thou therefore haue children saued by the Fayth of another, that is to say, by the Fayth of theyr Pa­rents?

It is plaine that the Faith of others and the prayers of those that are holy, doeth profite many vnfaythfull to mit­tigate their punishmentes: yea also the conuersion of Saule teacheth that the gyft of Fayth may bee so obteyned for some, if their opinion be true, who haue written that this was graunted by the prayers of Steuen. Notwithstanding I would not easily say that any shoulde bee saued by an other mans Faith, least any man shoulde so take mee, as if I shoulde say, that the Fayth of the Pa­rents is imputed to Infantes, as it were beleeuing through an other mans faith: which in very deede is no lesse false and absurde, then if I shoulde say, that any man could lyue by an other mans soule, or be wyse by an other mans wisedome. But certainely this I may say truely, [Page] that the Fayth of godly Parentes com­ming betweene, it is brought to passe that the Infantes either borne or to bee borne are holy, that is to say, are recke­ned in the couenaunt, and therefore are saued. Wherof that thou mayest doubt nothing, tell mee I pray thee wherevp­pon doeth Fayth laye holde: Doeth it not laye holde vpon that which the pro­mise conteineth, which is the obiect and ground of Fayth it selfe?

Yes verely.

Therefore the Fayth of godly Pa­rentes doeth laye holde vpon this pro­mise, Gen. 17. (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seede) both for them selues and for their seede. Nowe this promise is as muche as this, I doe make a coue­nant of saluation with thee and with thy seede.

127. Question.

Therefore shoulde all bee saued that are borne of godly Parentes?

Surely wee doe not without cause presume that they are saued, as those which seeme probably to be comprehen­ded in the couenant, and that by no faig­ned coniecture. But in meane time this nothing at all preiudiceth the secret and particular iudgements of God: and it is playne that they are shutte out from the couenant, who whē they come to yeares of discretion, shake off through vnbe­leefe that same grace.

128. Question.

But when thou sayest that the thinges signified in Baptisme are sea­led by fayth onely, what shall wee say to be sealed in infants, who when they are baptized are not replenished with any fayth in deed, and to those that are deade before they can bee taught the fayth?

Surely wee doe Baptise them as though they shoulde ouerlyue others. Nowe that which I haue spoken cōcer­ning fayth, belongeth onely vnto those that are come to the yeares of discretiō, [Page] & yet theyr baptisme shal not therefore be in vayne. For that shal bee ratified in them, that, as I haue sayd, the fayth of the godly Parents comming between, was nowe bestowed vppon them when they were borne, to witte, the engraffe­ment into the couenaunt: and therefore the forgiuenesse of sinne sinning, and fi­nally the whole fruite of Baptisme. To conclude that same solemne naming by the commaundement of Christe, of the father the Sonne and the holy Ghoste cannot be in vaine, neither are the prai­ers of the Church which are conceaued ouer him which is too bee baptized in vayne. But let these thinges be subiect vnto the iudgement of the Church. For neyther am I ignoraunt that it may al­so be sayde, that fayth is so geuen vntoo them by power, as by power and not by act and vse, they are endued with a rea­sonable soule. But I haue shewed what semeth most probable vnto me: neither doeth the diuersity of opinions in this matter shake or weaken the Christian fayth it selfe.

129. Question.

Forasmuche as certayne olde Fathers attributed very much in this cōtrouersie to the faith of the Parents and of the Church, whence I pray you came this questioning, doest thou be­leeue? I beleeue. Doest thou forsake? I forsake?

I am not ignoraunt howe diligently Augustine studyed wryting too Boni­facius too excuse this kynde of vow­ing and promising then vsed in the Baptisme of Infantes. But who see­eth not that this beganne from hence that that which was woonte to be saide and doone in the Baptisme of those which were growen of yeeres of discre­tion, were by the negligence of the By­shops, and peraduenture by the super­stition of some, drawen too the baptisme of infantes? Of which thing God wil­ling we wil then entreate, when we shal come to the confutation of the contrary opinions.

130. Question.

I haue hearde what thou doest [Page] thinke of the children of Turkes and Iewes. But whether doest thou reckō in the same number, theyr children which take parte with the Bishop of Rome?

No not so.

But yet you say that the Pope is ano­ther Antichrist: and therefore they who are called Papistes must needes be fallen from Christ.

I graunt it. But admitte that the Papacie bee not Christianisme but rather Antichristianisme: yet notwith­standing Christianisme hath remayned and doth remayne as it were buried in the Papacie.

131. Question.

What thou meanest, I doe not yet sufficiently perceiue.

I say that our Lorde Iesus Christe both would & yet will, that his Church [Page] shoulde lie hidde in the very bowelles of the papacie it selfe.

Wherevppon doest thou geather this?

By consequent. For I say, that wher­soeuer there is a Proper Note of the Churche, that the Churche is there.

132. Question

But howe miserably is that church defiled, whether thou looke vppon the doctrine it selfe, or vppon the marke of Baptisme the Note there­of?

Admitte it be so farre foorth defiled, that it cannot bee knowen of any but of cunning and skilfull men: yet notwith­standing it is in that same marke of his, I baptize thee in the name of the Fa­ther the Sonne and the holy Ghost.

What geatherest thou thereof?

That the Papistrie is at no hande Christianitie, but rather so greate a [Page] straying, as he that doeth embrace it & abyde in it, he must fall from Christia­nitie. The same is saide of Grecisme which also is so greate a straying from Christianitie, that no man can truely be a in opinion. Grecian and a Christian at this day. I say notwithstāding that the Gentiles (which nowe are comprehended gene­rally in those same two factions and en­clined to that cutting of of theirs which Paule manifestly foretolde) are not for all that to be reckened cut of, as long as the outward note of Baptisme shall en­dure there: and further I say that the Churche is geathered out of the mid­dest and in the myddest of Papistry.

Canst thou proue that, by any fitte example of the times past?

Yea forsooth. For what thinkest thou was Pharisaisme, Saducisme and too be short, Iudaisme in the times whyle Christ liued? Surely suche that no man was a Iewe (if thou looke vpon the ve­ry body of that people) which did not make the couenaunt of the Lorde in [Page] vayne. And yet notwithstanding true Religion was for a time in the mid­dest of Pharisatsme and Saducisme, yea and in the most corrupte Iudaisme, so long as Circumcision the seale of the couenant flourished amongest that peo­ple. But Circumcision beyng abolished and the note of Christianisme being re­iected, nowe the people of the Iewes are iustly sayde to be cutte off. The like I think not to be affirmed of Papistry it selfe: but of Christianity as it were drowned in the middest of Papistrie, and yet notwithstanding a little lifting vp it selfe.

133. Question.

But forasmuche as he that is a Pa­pist is not a Christian in deed, woul­dest thou admitte suche a man being of the yeeres of discretion & not bap­tized, to baptisme?

No, vnlesse he were first become in­structed & renounce Popery.

134. Question

And wouldest thou admit the child borne of such kind of Parents?

Neyther truely woulde I doe that rashly.

Vpon what conditions then?

To witte, eyther of some of the Pa­rentes or kinsfolkes renouncing Pope­rie and hauing the childe in their custo­die, woulde request this of mee: or else some fitte witnesse present, who woulde promise the godly and right instruction of the childe.

And wouldest thou doe the same thing too the childe of a Turke or a Iewe?

Surely I would doe it in the first sorte. Neyther shoulde suche a childe bee deemed too bee sprong from the Iewes or Turkes, forasmuche as they renouncing their false religion, and beyng nowe baptised themselues, or requiring Baptisme, they did de­sire Baptisme for their children and Offspring. But yf the Question [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] were of those that are of the yeeres of discretion, yea though there were presēt a thousand that wold promise for them, yet I woulde refuse too minister Bap­tisme vnto their childe.

And why so rather then too the childe of the Papistes?

Because neither Iudaisme nor Tur­cisme is Christianisme, neither in Tur­cisme or now in Iudaisme is Christia­nisme: that is, I haue not any probable­coniecture wherby I may geather, that any borne of the Iewes or Turkes is holy, that is to say, which doeth belong vnto the couenant of GOD. But now albeit Papisme bee not true Christia­nisme, yet notwithstanding Christia­nisme is as yet in Papisme, as may ap­peare by that, that there hath yet re­mayned safe and sounde, that same substantiall forme of Baptisme which Sathan yet coulde not vtterly abo­lish.

135. Question.

Doest thou thinke the same of [Page] the children of euerie kinde of Here­tikes?

No, not so, for I except those, who abolishing the baptisme of Christ (now that is the baptisme of Christ, which is ministred so as Christ hath instituted) haue brought in an other, although they falsely say that it is the Baptisme of Christ, which is said of the Eunomians and Presilianistes and diuers others.

Wouldest thou therefore baptise these againe?

Nay rather I would baptize thē be­ing not yet baptised with the baptisme of Christ.

136. Question.

Hitherto therefore hath beene spoken of those which are to be bap­tised. Now I aske whose office it is to baptize.

Surely it is their office, to whom the care of administring the woord is com­maunded. For the Sacramentes are as it were seales set vnto the tables of the woorde, and Christ sending foorth [Page] his Apostles and prescribing the fourme of Baptisme, hath ioyned these two together.

137. Question.

But Paule sayth, that he was not sent to baptise. 1. Cor. 1. 16.

That that is not to be vnderstoode precisely, but by way of comparison, it appeareth by that, that in the selfe same place hee sayth, hee baptised the house of Stephana, which he woulde neuer haue done, vnlesse hee had beene called vnto it. Therefore he saith that he was sent that he might specially labour by the preaching of the Gospel to plant Churches, in which he appointed Pa­stours of whom rather as also of theyr fellowe helpers the Euangelistes, all beleeuers (as the matter required) shoulde bee baptised. But it appeareth that the olde Churche especially nowe whē baptisme was become more labor­some, vsed in many thinges the helpe of Deacons. But to be short seeyng that Baptisme is meerely one parte of the Church ministery, it is rightly admini­stred, [Page] by ministers onely that are law­fully called.

138. Question

But whether doest thou beleeue that the popish eyther Bishoppes, or Priests, are lawfully called?

I beleeue nothing lesse, no not by theyr owne Canons, otherwise not ve­ry pure.

139. Question.

Yea but they haue the laying on of hands, or ordination which they say we lacke.

But howe often is it that the Canons doe forbid, that he shoulde bee esteemed lawfully ordeyned, who is not lawfully elected? Nowe the way of lawfull ele­ction is too bee sought of vs out of the Apostle, especially so farre foorth as be­longeth to the examination of doctrine and manners. Therefore they wante the foundation of lawfull ordination, and therefore they boast in vaine of the laying on of handes, which notwith­standing it shall not bee harde for vs [Page] to shewe to haue more purely then they haue it, as perhaps I wil shewe in ano­ther place more fully.

140. Question.

Threfore what thinkest thou of Baptisme ministred of priuate per­sons, or by such as execute not the ministerie of the woord?

I would esteeme it no more, then that which some priuate man should do according to his owne will in the name of the king or of the common wealth: or as a faigned seale deuised of some pri­uate man according to the apishe im­mutation of the publike seale, and so set to some instrument: or as a fable.

Thou wouldest then much lesse allowe baptisme ministred in sporte, or of Midwiues.

Out vpon that grosse and filthie prophanation of the holy ministerie.

141. Question.

But what if necessitie doe vrge it?

I haue already aunsweared, that the beginning of our saluation is deriued from the tables of the couenaunt it self, and not from the seale set vntoo them, which yet notwithstāding if any despise hee is woorthely depriued of the bene­fite of them: but that he seemes not too haue contemned them, whiche coulde not obtayne them, keeping the righte order.

142. Question.

But are not priuate persons and those which are not lawefully called, to be thought in like place & degree? Which if it bee true, certeynly the baptisme administred by popishe priestes must be in vayne and serue to no purpose.

Here I will not sticke too borrowe that from the Lawyers, which maketh greatly to this purpose: the fault is ey­ther in the person, or in the thing or in both: in the person, as when the Magi­strate is corruptly made, who notwith­standing (as Varro witnesseth in his fifth booke of the Latine tongue) is no [Page] Magistrate. But the Lawyers do more subtilly distinguish betweene him who is a Magistrate, (to wit, a lawful one) and him who is in the Magistracie: as when they dispute that it is one thing too bee Proconsull, and another thing too bee in the Proconsulshippe: another thing to be Pretor, then to ex­cerise the Office of the Pretorship, as is sayde of Barbarius Philippus: ano­ther thing too bee Tutor, then too ex­ercise the office of Tutorshippe: in so muche as that sometimes hee that is a Magistrate (as for example if hee bee an outragious man) may bee a Ma­gistrate indeede but yet hee can not ex­ecute the Office of a Magistrate. The faulte is in the act when it is not orde­dered rightly, that is to say, when suche things are omitted w ^c are of the nature of the act it selfe. Nowe in the Papisti­call Baptisme, the faulte is not in the act in which that same principal forme is kept, which other strange and super­fluous thinges cannot hurte, but the faulte is in the person, for they are an­nexed to the Bishops & too the Elders, [Page] But this fault cannot hurte the action. For (that I may come more neere too our Diuines) they that are not law­fully called vnto the ministery, and yet notwithstanding sitte in the chayre of the Ministerie, by the consent of some men (although deceiued) albeit in respecte of the Persons themselues, they bee not true Pastoures, yet not­withstanding they are to be accounted in another place thē they that haue nei­ther lawfull nor vnlawfull calling. So Caiphas indeede was not the lawfull high priest, because he had by giuing of money entred into the high Priesthood, yet notwithstāding sitting in the chaire of the highe Priesthood, (albeit vna­wares) he vttereth a Prophesie. And before this Bishop sitting in his seate, the Lord goeth to the temple and obser­ueth those diuine ceremonies that were not yet abolished. So the Pharisies so farre foorth as they sate in Moyses chayre, are commaunded too be heard, which Chayre notwithstāding the most of them had gotten by ambition and euill meanes. Finally so are those thinges holden for firme whiche some [Page] man accounted a Magistrate comman­deth, albeit hee were promoted thither by euill indeuours, which it is certayne happened vnto one Barbarius Philip­pus a seruant, and yet notwithstanding through error created Pretor of Rome. To conclude a faulty vocatiō, may hurt the cōscience of him who hath violently broken in vppon that office, but it doeth not defile those thinges which are done of him as if he were lawfully called.

143. Question.

But that same baptisme admini­stred by Sacrifising Priestes is defiled with many spottes.

Thou saiest very true. But that same essentiall fourme of the Baptisme of Christe, by the singular goodnesse of GOD hath remayned in it, the trueth whereof cannot be hyndred by any ad­ded deuises.

144. Question.

Should not Baptisme then be true baptisme, vnlesse the pure woorde of the institution were vsed?

No verily, it coulde not be. For the forme geueth euery thing his essence or beyng.

But if the fault in the forme as thou sayest bee so greate, that it defile the thing it selfe: doeth not a fault in the very explication of baptisme it selfe doe yt muche more, in which thou art not ignorant how greeuously the Papistes offende.

No not so. For albeeit that the corruption of the doctrine bee greater and more grieuous before GOD, then the corruption of the outward forme, yet notwithstanding it doeth not so muche defile the action of baptisme it selfe, be­cause the faulte of doctrine sticketh too the teacher, neyther doeth it hurte the truth of the Sacramēt otherwise right­ly ministred: but the faulte of the forme is in the thing it selfe and therfore may be such (as for example, if men offend in the Element it selfe, or in the worde of institutiō, or in some rite) that is meerly [Page] that it defileth the action it selfe. As for example sake, if any should not baptise in the name of the Trinitie, or shoulde name the sonne inequal, or should bap­tise in the name of the Virgine Mary, or in steed of water, should vse (specially, wittingly, and willingly) I can not tell what other thing altogether contrary, or els shoulde omyt sprinkeling or dyp­ping, certeinely this could not bee the Baptisme instituted of Christ. But con­trariwise if it might bee, that euen Sa­than him selfe should sit in the chayre of the ministry, and shoulde minister the lawfull Baptisme of Christ, it shoulde be the true Baptisme of Christ, because it dependeth neither vpō the knowledge of the minister nor vpon his conscience.

145. Question.

Doest thou therfore thinke that they doe well, who renouncing Po­pery & embracing true Christianitie do offer their children to the Priestes to be baptized of them?

No not so.

And yet thou sayest that that is a true baptisme.

And yet doth not that followe heere of. For although that be auaileable that is geuen, yet notwithstanding it follo­weth not that, he is without sinne that required it. For seing that many things are impure in the Papisticall rytes of Baptisme, hee is not deuoyde of sinne which geueth occasion of the vse of thē. that I say nothing that so by this means they are nourished in theyr bastardely calling, whom those that shoulde chiefly take charge thereof, ought by Christes example too driue out of the house of God.

What thinkest thou thē to be done of those fathers, who imbracing true religion dwell amongest the Pa­pistes?

I aduise thē y ^t they spare no cost and leaue no way vnsought, that they may [Page] prouide to haue their children baptized purely, and that rather they defer their baptisme, then become guiltie of those corruptions.

146. Question.

But what if in the meane tyme the childe dye?

Surely the chylde it selfe, shall not beare the blame: and we haue sayd often tymes alreadie, that it is not the want of baptisme, but the contempt of it in it selfe, that maketh a man vnwoorthie of the benefite of the couenant.

But the Lorde witnesseth that it shall come to passe, that whosoeuer is not circumcized, shal be cut off. Genes. 17. 14.

If thou vnderstande this of the shut­ting out aswell from holy exercises of religion, as from ciuill fellowshyp, be­cause it is added, from amongest his people, this shalbe the manacing, that the vncircumcized were neyther admit­ted to the exercises of religion, nor to ci­uill [Page] offices. But if thou take this of the shutting out from the very couenaunt of euerlasting saluation, this that is added, for hee hath ouerthrowen my coue­naunt, sheweth that it must bee vnder­stood of those onely which willingly and wittingly, or els through negligence, shall haue dispised Circumcision. Yea rather it is certayne, that they who ly­ued so long vncircumcized in the Wil­dernesse, Iosuah. 5. 4: yet for all y ^t went to the holy congregations, and were ac­compted Citizens of the commō wealth of the Iewes: to wyt, because that fell out not through contempte of Cir­cumcision, but because it could not bee commodiously ministred in the Wilder­nesse. For it is not probable that Moy­ses and Aaron woulde otherwyse haue neglected it.

147. Question.

But thinkest thou that there is no consideration to be had of the age of those that are to be baptized?

For as much as the profession of faith is required of those that are of the yeres [Page] of discretion, the more diligent that they shalbe in knowing the chiefe and prin­cipall pointes of Christian religion, the better, they shal prouide for them selues. But the sooner that godly parentes shal offer their children to bee baptized the better they shall doe: least if it might be they shoulde bee depriued of this bene­fite.

148. Question.

But yet the Male children of the Israelites were not circumcized be­fore the eight day. Gen. 17. 12.

Forsooth because there was another lawe that letted, pronouncing those to bee vncleane till the seuenth day, that had touched a woman in childe bedde. Leuit. 12. 2. & 15. 19.

149. Question.

But it is euident that many put off Baptisme long, so that euen Gregory Nazianzen the sonne of a Bishop him selfe, came not to bee baptized vntill he was euen nowe fully growen, and come to rype yeeres.

This also manifesteth as many other thinges doe, the negligence of many Bishops, of vs not in any case to be fol­lowed. Moreouer Nazianzen himselfe doeth sharpely reprooue euen this same putting off of Baptisme, in his oration vpon holy Baptisme, with whome not­withstanding I doe not consent in this (as also I doe not in certayne other poyntes comprehended in the same ora­tion) because hee persuadeth vs to put off the Baptisme of children to the space of three or foure yeares, some at lesse or more, vnlesse (sayeth hee) that daunger doe enforce vs, in which they myght learne & answere some mysticall thing. For that very Lawe of Circumcision sheweth, that this is a most vayne rea­son, which was giuē aswel as baptisme for the sealing vp of that couenaunt in Christ.

150. Question.

But what tyme thinkest thou the fittest to administer Baptisme?

Here in a maner it is incredible to be spoken, howe great confusion was brought into the Churches vnder the shewe of order, and specially into the Greeke Churches. For it is certayne, by the Acts of the Apostles, that at the beginning, baptisme was ministred as occasion was offred: they for the moste parte which came vnto Baptisme bee­ing rather endued with Faith in Christ by miracle, then by any order of the in­stitution. Afterwardes as it specially appeareth by the seconde Defensory o­ration of Iustinus, the holy Ghost be­ginning to woorke by litle and litle by ordinary means, when the congregati­ons were gathered together, baptisme was ministred. Afterwardes that all things might be done in order, instruc­ters being ordeyned, two dayes were at the first by a certayne custome, then by lawe, and at length as it were by a cer­taine superstition appointed for the bap­tizing of those that were so instructed. Nowe at the length, it was brought to this passe, that it was in a maner comp­ted [Page] a great trespasse to baptize at any o­ther time then at Easter and at Whit­sontide. Further vnder the cullour of this order appointed, to the end that they that were catechized (suche as were in the beginning all those that were to be baptised as well of the Iewes as of the Gentiles) should not be called e­uery day, nor before a lawful profession: it is in a manner incredible to thinke what confusions were pulled intoo the church especially, for that cause because that whereas baptisme in those same that were of the yeeres of discretion, was the first entrance intoo the congre­gation of the Church, they coulde not precisely wayte for the sett time of Easter and Whitsontide, but they must thinke themselues after a sort condem­ned, who in the meane season fell into the daunger of death. And heerevpon that, also ensued that they were bounde too discharge an infinite number from those Lawes, who also pretended o­ther thinges. So crept in that same errour to the absolute necessitie of bap­tisme, which opinion when it seemed [Page] to thrust downe all men headlong into hell, a wise treacle was giuen of some, diuising a certaine place, in which they shoulde bee placed which were deade without baptisme through no faulte of their owne, neyther shoulde they feele indeede those euerlasting paynes, ney­ther be pertakers of that heauenly bles­sednesse, which also Nazianzen hath taught. I omitte other infinite things which may rightly cause Christians being better learned too bee ashamed, and were brought in; by the meanes of those thinges which at the first were appointed for order sake.

But what doest thou gather of these?

That for as much as the condition of times at the least is altered in this, that now none that are of the yeeres of dis­cretion are baptised, and the inconueni­ences of those same olde Canons are euident ynough, that those same Chur­ches doe verie well, which so take order [Page] for the vse of baptisme, that neyther infantes, (as much as may be) bee depriued of Baptisme, not that their superstition be nourished which tye sal­uation vnto Baptisme, neither if it bee possible that Baptisme bee se­parated from the dayly preaching of the woord.

151. Question.

But doest thou thinke that no­thing ought to be determined con­cerning the place?

Yea, seeing all thinges must be doone in the Churche comely and in order: And forasmuch as Bap­tisme is a parte of the mynisterie of the Gospell, I thinke that one and the fame place is too bee vsed both for the woorde and Sacramentes, so as Baptisme bee ministred in the pub­like congregation of the Churche and with common prayer, neyther will I rashly admitte those, I can­not tell what, cases of necessitie, that [Page] some alleadge to the contrary.

But what doest thou thinke con­cerning the rites themselues?

I thinke that we ought to stand too the woord of God.

But it seemeth that the woorde of God requireth a thorow dipping in­to the water.

I graunt that the name it selfe of baptisme being taken in the precise and straight signification doth declare no lesse: neyther is it any maruayle that this was obserued in those of the yeeres of discretion, especially in Iewrie and those same hotte countries in which it might be done without any danger of health. But I thinke that wee must looke vnto the verie end of baptisme it selfe, which it is plaine also that wee keepe in the simple sprinkling of wa­ter vpon the infants wet therewith, like as sprinkling was sufficient in those same purifications of the law (in which [Page] also our baptisme was shadowed: nei­ther ought we greatly to striue, whether with litle or much water the whole body be dipped in, or the head only sprinkled.

Question.

What thinkest thou of that same threefold dipping?

It appeareth out of Tertullian that this was then receiued against the vni­tie of persons. But howesoeuer it bee, why may we not aswel vse one dipping alone, that it may be signified that wee indeede are baptized into three persons (as by the wordes of Baptisme it selfe is vnderstoode) but yet notwithstanding into one God? For it is as daungerous to multiply the essence, as to appointe one onely person. But generally I think we ought not to stryue, either of one or of threefolde dippyng or sprinckling: which also seemed vnto Gregory Bi­shop of Rome in his first booke, Epistle 41. 26.

153. Question.

But heere againe, there is another thing that I woulde learne of thee, [Page] whether thou think that this fourme, I baptise thee in the name, or into the name of the Father, the Sonne, & the holy Ghost, bee precisely and in so many wordes and sillables necessari­ly to bee vsed. For thou art not igno­raunt that the Grecians say, let the seruaunt of Christ bee baptized into the name of the Father?

I say here omitting the quidities and subtilties of the schoolemen, that two extreemes are diligently to be shunned of vs: to witte, that we neyther fall in­to the impietie of Magitians, who faigne a certaine vertue in some certain wordes, forasmuch (as we haue said be­fore) as wordes in them selues, haue no­thing els but the force of signification: neyther let vs thinke likewise that it is lawfull for vs in the institution of the Lorde (so as it is prescribed of him in certayn words) to chaunge any thing at all. And nowe in very deede concerning that first pointe, if there had bene any power and vertue in the letters & sounds [Page] of the sillables themselues, the Apostles must alwayes haue vsed the Syriach tongue, forasmuch as it is plaine, that our Lorde Iesus Christe spake in the same tongue. Therefore he chaungeth nothing in the matter it selfe, which speaketh the same thing which Christe him self hath instituted in that lāguage, that they vse that are to bee baptized. Yea hee that doeth otherwise (as at this day is done in that counterfeite Church of Rome) hee doeth euill, because the Lorde will that those thinges be spoken with vnderstanding to his, which hee would haue to be beleeued and done of all.

154. Question.

I beseech thee therfore, if the bap­tizer vse a straunge tongue not vnder­stood of any, whether is the baptisme ratified or no?

The efficacy or vertue of Baptisme doth not depend of the Baptizer, so that hee (as I haue sayde) want not a voca­tion although it bee faultie. And see­yng that Infantes haue as muche in­telligence [Page] (if thou speake in a strange tongue, as if thou shouldest speake in thine owne language) of the fruites of Baptisme which belongeth vnto them, which afterwardes are come to theyr groweth, doe depende vpon preachyng and Fayth, which doe succeede in theyr tyme. But the calling vpon the name of the Lorde in others can not be in vayne, although it bee wonderfully defiled by theyr faulte who preaching the worde, or administring the Sacrament in the Church, vse a straunge tongue.

155. Question.

Is the Minister therefore precisely bound to vse the fourme commaun­ded by Christ, the wordes onely alte­red by the sound of an other tongue?

Surely there can fal out no iust cause that may excuse any chaunge in so fewe words, wherein that same whole & per­fect mysterie of y ^e diuinitie is declared.

What therefore if any man should say indeede of the Father, begetter: for, the Sonne begotten: for the holy [Page] Ghost, proceeding? What if in steede of three distinct persons hee shoulde call vpon the Trinitie?

To what purpose I pray thee are these thinges, the Lord hath commaun­ded in this mystery, that we should not call vpon the personall proprieties, but vpon the persons them selues, and that vppon them distinctly. I will therefore neuer admitte any affectate or deuized fourme, in steede of that which is law­full.

Muche lesse then wouldest thou admyt the takyng out of any per­son, or any hereticall addition, as if any man should say the Father grea­ter, the Sonne lesser, or the holy Ghost onely proceeding from the Father.

Thou thinkest rightly. For neither were this the Baptisme of the Church of Christ.

156. Question.

But what thinkest thou of these same speeches, I baptise thee: or by [Page] the seruaunt of Christe bee Bapti­zed.

Christ hath not prescribed vnto his Ministers what or howe many wordes they shoulde vse in the function of his ministery, but hee hath defined the act it selfe, when he commaundeth them to Baptise into the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. Therefore they neyther adde nor dimi­nishe from the worde of God, but satis­fie their office: when they expound the institution of our Lorde it selfe vnto the bearers. And when they bee come vnto the actuall fourme it selfe (as I may say) of the administration, whether they say, I baptise thee: or whether, let the seruaunt of Christe be baptized, it ma­keth no matter, so that the fourme of the action it selfe which they exercise bee kept. But notwithstanding that I may speake plainely as the matter is, the fourme kept in the Latine Churches seemeth vnto mee to come more neere­ly to the commaundement of the Lord, [Page] and to be more fitte to confirme the faith of him which is to be baptized.

Why so?

Because the Minister speaking of himselfe, when he sayeth in the first per­son: I baptise, and then addeth the Pro­noune, thee, doeth make the mynde of him which is to be baptized more atten­tiue, aswell to marke the outwarde acti­on as though GOD himselfe were present, doyng the selfe same thing by himselfe, which the Minister witnes­seth by his worde: as also too apply the the promise vnto himselfe properly and peculiarly.

157. Question.

But the child which is baptised, vn­derstandeth none of these thinges.

I graunte it, but hee shall vnder­stande it in his tyme: because, as I sayd before, the vertue of these wordes through out the whole lyfe of them, that are baptized, sheweth his power in all Tentations, so that we being at the [Page] very point of death may and ought euen with this onely buckler beat backe all those later temptations of Sathan, A­uaunt Sathan for when I was yet deaf I heard one that sayde vntoo me, in the name and by the commaundement of my Sauiour, I baptise thee N. in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost. This same baptisme is vntoo me a sure pleadge that I am cleansed from all my sinnes, and endued with the righteousnesse of my Christ, to­gether with whom I dying and beeyng buried, I haue nowe begonne to arise a­gayne in my minde and shal fully at the length also rise againe in my fleshe to e­uerlasting life.

158. Question.

But forasmuch as wee sinne euery moment, and our sinnes are washed away by baptisme, howe commeth it to passe that baptisme is not oftē mi­nistred to one especially seeyng wee minister the Supper of the Lorde of­tentimes.

It is enough that we are once rege­nerated [Page] and entred intoo the Churche from whence none that is electe is cast out. But to bee fed once in the Churche suffiseth not.

159. Question.

Yea, but doe not sinnes shut vs out of the kingdome of God?

No not so. For so none shoulde re­mayne in the Churche, forasmuche as euery one is a lyer that sayth, he hath no sinne. Oursinnes therefore indeede, yea our least sinnes deserue a shutting out from the kingdome of God: but to the e­lect enioying the fauour of GOD, they are not imputed. Therefore Sainte Paule saide not Rom. 8. 1 that there is no sinne, but that there is no condemna­tion too them which are in Christe Ie­sus.

Let vs therefore sinne, that grace may abounde.

Yea but Christian fayth can by no meanes admit this. For it beleeueth no­thing but that the worde of promise of­fereth. [Page] Now there is no promise of par­don, but to those that repent and amend, and none are further of from repentance and amendment then they that witting­ly abuse the patience of GOD to sinne. Therefore the gift of true repentance is also properly belonging to the elect.

160. Question.

But what wilte thou say of those that are excommunicated? For the lawfull iudgementes of the Churche by the woorde of Christe done in the earth are ratified in the heauens. Matth. 18. 18. Nowe they that are ex­communicated are cast out of the middest of the Churche. 1. Cor. 5. 1. and therefore out of the kingdome of God.

No man can more doubte that the iudgement of lawful excommunication is ratified in the heauens, then if the Sonne of GOD himselfe should pro­nounce the sentence, forasmuche as the Churche doeth that which it doeth in his name. Yet notwithstanding thou gaynest not that thou striuest for. For [Page] neither the excommunicate persons are simply too be compared too braunches, nowe once simply cut of from the Vine, but too vnfruitful branches w ^c draw not iuyce out of the Vine, and therefore at length too bee cutte off from GOD, vnlesse they shortely sprowte agayne which appeareth by the fruites of re­pentaunce, euen like as it falleth out too bowes, which in the Winter time bee as they were dead, and yet notwith­stāding in the spring time receiue their former hewe and liuelinesse againe. For those same giftes of God are without repētance. Now if so bee any continue vnto the last in their stubbornesse, it is a token that they were indeede for a time outwardly in the church, but they were neuer of the Churche. For they had abidden with vs (sayth Saynt Iohn) or at least after theyr errour they had re­turned 1. Iohn. 2. 14. vnto vs agayne, if they had been of vs.

161. Question.

But now if Baptisme be therefore [Page] not to be often ministred to one, be­cause the firste entraunce intoo the Churche cannot be frustrate, why in like manner sufficeth it not once too haue receiued the Supper, forasmuch as he that is truely once incorporated into the body of Christ, can neuer al­together fall out of it?

We haue told the cause already. For it is ynough once to bee borne agayne, but not to be once nourished: bicause as in this corporal life we must oftentimes take meate, by the iuyce whereof wee may be nourished: so beeing incorpora­ted into Christ, that wee may more and more be quickened in him, the often sea­ling of that incorporation, and as it were the nourishing of fayth is profita­ble. Notwithstanding these thinges in this similitude are altogether diuerse, bicause this meate is corruptible which we vse to the vpholding of this life, and therefore after the olde, another newe alwayes succeedeth: but the inwarde meat which is giuen in the holy supper, is incorruptible, and therefore when the [Page] Supper is often vsed, neyther is newe meate receiued, nor that same first meat as it were before reiected receiued a­gayne, but the same meate which we had taken before, is more and more as it were engraffed in vs, and by fayth are strengthened, that so muche the more effectually we may bee nourished with that, (that is too say, with Christ, to euerlasting life.

162. Question.

This bee spoken hitherto of bap­tisme. Nowe let vs come too the other Sacrament of the Christian Churche. Howe shall wee call that?

Paule calleth it the Supper of our Lorde. 1. Cor. 11 20. because that at the first it was celebrated towardes the E­uening by the Lorde, which also was a long time obserued in the Christian Churche. Hee likewise calleth it the Table of the Lorde. 1. Cor. 10. 21.

163. Question.

And is it not otherwise called of [Page] the auncient fathers?

Therefore also lette vs way these names. Certayne men doe in this ar­gument reckon vp the names of the Li­turgie or seruice, of the Synaxis or the gathering together of the people, & of Agape y ^e feasts of loue, but in my iudge ment, not rightly enough. For by those two former names are signified not one­ly those mysteries, but also those other partes of the publike woorship of God. For [...] as all that are not vt­terly ignoraunt of the Greeke tongue knowe, is the selfe same that to execute any publike ministery is, which after­warde is drawen to all ecclesiasticall functions, like as the Apostle also cal­leth himself [...] the seruant of Iesus Christ, & his office he calleth [...].

Thou art not ignoraunt that the olde Latine interpreter. Actes 13. 2. hath turned [...] sacrificing

I knowe it it very well, and in very deede he hath done it very foolishly, [Page] vnlesse wee will also make the Angels, Sacrificers, as they that are called [...] ministring spirits. Heb. 1. 14. and Magistrates. Rom. 13. 4.

But yet so it seemeth too be taken. Luke. 1. 23. Heb. 10. 11.

Nay rather there also it is taken for the whole office of the Priesthood. The name also of [...] that is too say a meeting together, is larger, although it were at length translated, too that same principall parte thereof, too wit, too signifie the Lordes supper. Nowe they called [...] those same com­mon holie Banquettes and whatsoe­uer was doone in them, as Tertul­lian declareth at large, in his defence. Iude also vseth the same name. Iude the twelfth verse: the name beeyng taken from hence, because then they vsed certayne choyce, Daynties and Iunkets, and also because Christians did so testifie theyr mutuall Loue [Page] and most neere coniunction.

164. Question.

But what thinkest thou of the name of Eucharist or thankesge­uing.

The Supper of the Lord was so called, not in respect that it was a Sacra­ment, but as it was a Sacrifice.

165. Question.

Therefore with thee, the Supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice.

It is so indeed, And that in a three­fold respect: first in this respect that we offer some thing to God in the same, to wit, that same solemn giuing of thanks, by that commaundement of Christ, As oft as yee shall doe these thinges, yee shall shewe foorth the Lordes death. By which reason the Supper of the Lorde may be sayde to succeede in the place of all those Sacrifices which they called peace offeringes. Moreouer be­cause the almes were bestowed in it, peraduenture by the ordinance of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 16. 2. the which almes [Page] were called Prospherai or Oblations out of that sētence of Christ, that which you shall doe to the least of these, you doe it vnto me. Thirdly because it doth as it were renewe that same sacrifice, of the Lords death, after a certaine sorte set before our eyes in those mysteries. Neyther is it otherwise to bee expoun­ded whatsoeuer is read of that sacrifice and vnbloodie oblation of Christ in the olde and more pure fathers, as well the Greekes as Latine.

Doest thou not thinke therefore, that Christ is offered againe vnto his Father, of the Priest in verie deed for the quicke and the deade.

Out vpon that blasphemy the most execrable of all that euer were.

166. Question.

But what thinkest thou of the name of the Sacrament of the Al­tar?

It is certaine that there was some kinde of altar set in a conuenient place, [Page] whether the giftes and offerings were caryed, (as also now the Popes Canon hath) out of which were taken bread & wine, w ^c were appointed to the holy mi­steries. And this was the Ambrie as it were of these Loue feasts, by the exā ­ple of Christe. And the Minister was wont to stande at that place blessing the bread and wine. But heere see together with mee the crafte of Sathan. For there is no doubte but vsing the occa­sion of this Aultar hee transfonrmed the Sacrament intoo a Sacrifice, and that Propitiatorie. But in the wri­tinges of the Apostles there is no men­tion of an Aultar, but onely of the Lordes Table. Of so greace waight is it, not too bring any thing rashly, no vee it neuer so indifferent, intoo the Churche.

167. Question.

And what thinkest thou concer­ning the Masse?

Of the thing it self, that is to say, of the impietie thereof, suche as the like was neuer, wee will speake in hys [Page] proper place. Nowe I say that the woorde is altogether barbarous. For the Auncient Latines, too whome that woorde was proper, sayde not Mis­sam but Missas. For I can also shewe Romanum capitulare thee, an olde Romishe Grayle as they call it, in which they say in the plurall number and in the Newter Gender Missa. Neyther can that woorde signi­fie any other thing, then thinges sent, to witte, Oblations which euery man brought in theyr meeting. For concer­ning that certayne men haue written of the sending away of the companie, and much more some haue made much ado about the Etimologie of the He­brue worde, it seemeth too mee altoge­ther absurde.

168. Question.

Concerning the names them­selues, sufficiently is saide. Now I pray thee define vntoo mee the Supper it selfe.

Then I define the Supper of the Lord, to be an holy action, cōmanded of [Page] Christ to all the faithfull of ripe yeeres, too continue in the Churche too the end of the worlde, in which by a fitte A­nalogie and proportion of Elementes and Ceremonies, the memory aswell of his death is liuely set before vs, as also our incorporation intoo him through faith, is spiritually sealed, and our mu­tuall coniunction in him ratified. Final­ly a solemne geuing of thankes is pay­ed vnto him.

I would gladly then haue this defi­nition particularly declared vnto me.

Why I say it too be an holy action, thou hast knowen before in the definiti­on of a Sacrament: If thou demand of the rest, I will answeare thee in order.

169. Question.

I haue vnderstood also before why thou sayest it was commaunded of Christ to continue to the end of the world, or till he come agayne, as hee himself speaketh. But why doest thou add [vnto the faithful that are of ripe yeeres?

Because that forasmuche as the exa­mining of a mans owne selfe by the A­postolical doctrine is required, we must needes determine that they are to bee shut out, who neyther can proue them­selues, neyther are able to make confes­sion of theyr fayth which they might ex­amine.

Wilt thou therefore haue children made men, and finally, those which are not taught in Christian religion, shut out?

What els: And therefore the sup­per of the Lord to be prophaned of those which minister it to Infantes.

And yet to the eating of the Pas­chall Lambe, in whose place succeded the Supper of the Lorde, children al­so were admitted.

I graunt it. But they were of that age, that they could aske their Fathers, and myght bee taught of them, as is playne. Exod. 12. 26.

170. Question.

Why diddest thou adde [in the Churche?

That thou mightest knowe that it is not a priuate, but a commō action, that is to say, an action in the congregation, eyther of some whole church, or of some particular, finally not to bee celebrated of any one priuatly but in common, whereof we shall speake afterwardes, when we shall dispute agaynst the abu­ses of the holie Supper.

171. Question.

What callest thou the elementes?

That same bread & that wine.

172. Question.

Why doest thou adde that same bread and that wine?

That I may distinguish holy things from common things. For so also Paule speaketh. 1. Cor. 11. 16. 17.

But in what thing consisteth this difference?

Not in the substance but in the qua­litie and vse. For common bread & com­mon wine are sette before vs, that they may nourishe this life: but that same bread and that same wine, are therefore giuen vs, that they might be both signes & seales of the communicating of that body, geuen for vs, and of the blood shed for vs, and that into euerlasting life.

173. Question.

And what are those same rites be­longing vnto the Sacrament?

Touching that that belongeth vnto the minister, to blesse, too breake, too powre out, to geue: concerning that, that belongeth to the guestes, too take too eate, to drinke.

174. Question.

And what is signified aswel by these elementes, as by those ceremonies sa­cramētally?

Surely y ^t bread is y ^e sacramētall signe of that body geuen for vs, and that wine of that blood shedde for vs: finally, both two of whole Christ, as of our euer [Page] lasting meate. The blessyng was ap­poynted not so muche to signifie some mysterie, as partly to confirme those which came to the Lordes Table, part­ly to perfect that same Sacrament, and partly to celebrate some solempne acti­on of thankes giuing. Of which matter it shall be meete to entreate apart. Now the breaking of the bread is a signe of the passion of Christ.

175. Question.

Whence doest thou geather this? For there are which referre this speci­ally to the vse of vnleauened or sweet breades, which it is manifest was not very thick, and for the cutting wher­of there needed no knyfe. Moreouer they say also, that to breake bread, by the Hebrew phrase signifieth as much as to distribute & plentifully to giue bread.

Both the things that these men say, is very true, but this same last is by no means agreeable to those things which the Lord did & commaunded to be done. For it is written, he brake, he gaue, [Page] wereby there can not be (vnderstood by the name of breaking, the distributiō of bread. Now I graunt that some other, and I adde further, that housholders were wont, yea, besides the vse of vnlea­uened bread, to breake bread to the vse of their housholde. But the Apostle ma­nifestly sheweth that this ryte albeit it was common, yet it became sacramen­tall, and that by reason of those same mentioned punishments which the lord suffered for our cause, for so much as hee wrote, in steed of these wordes, that is giuen, that is broken.

176. Question.

Yea, but one bone was not broken in him.

I graunt it: but yet verely hee was torne and rent both with the tormentes of minde and body, and there is nothing more vsuall in the woorde of God, then this Metaphor, whereby it is also sayd, that the heart is brused & broken. Nowe this giuing, or outwarde offring of the signes is to be taken, as if Christe him­selfe should giue him selfe vnto vs with his owne hande, to be vsed and enioyed, [Page] and shoulde insinuate himselfe wholy vnto vs, which thing also in verie deede he perfourmeth inwardly by the power of his holy spirite, vnles that our vnbe­liefe hinder it.

Now the outward receiuing, wher­by we lay holde vpon the elements as with the hand, it answereth the inward receiuing by fayth, that betwixt vs and Christ there may be perfected and con­cluded as it were a certaine bargayne, Christ demaunding, Wilt thou re­ceiue me inwardly by fayth, euen as I doe outwardly deliuer thee, these same seales of my promise by my mi­nister into thy handes? And fayth an­swering, I wil Lord, and by fayth I re­ceiue thee, euen as this hand receiueth these seales giuen vnto it.

Nowe the eating of that breade, and the drinking of that wine, declareth the applying of Christe layde holde v­pon by fayth, whereby it is brought to passe, that being truely made partakers of him, we more and more drawe out of him whatsoeuer belongeth to our salua­tion.

177. Question.

But what is the proportion and the analogie of these signes with the thinges signified?

This analogie or proportion is ma­nifest in it selfe. For seeing that breade­and wine is most fit aboue other meats, for the nourishing of our bodies, they do most fitly set forth him vnto vs in whō onely euerlasting life resteth. But the breaking of breade and the pouring foorth of wine, doeth as it were set be­fore our eyes those infinit torments that the Lord suffered for our sakes, that wee might in a maner looke vpon him with our very eyes hanging bloodie vpon the Crosse, and instilling into vs out of his pierced side euerlasting life. Hitherto belongeth that same saying. De consec dist. 2. When the offering is taken, whiles the blood is poured out of the cuppe into the mouthes of the fayth­ful, what other thing is set foorth thē the offering vp of the Lords body vp­on the crosse, and the pouring foorth of his blood from his side? Finally the eating and drinking doeth so expresly [Page] and in a manner so liuely declare as it were our transformation into Christe him selfe, and his insinuation againe in­to vs, whereby he him selfe liueth in vs, and we againe in him, that nothing can be more euident. For what can be more nearely ioyned vnto vs, then that which we eate and drynke, as that which is transformed & chaunged into our selues?

178. Question.

But yet thou hast saide nothing of our mutuall consociation into one body.

That also appeareth by the whole cere­mony. For seeyng that we take one and the selfe same meat from one and the self same table, wee professe that wee are of one and the selfe same Housholde, and wee promyse eche too others our mutuall helpes by this solempne cere­mony. Hitherto also belongeth that same analogie and proportion of bread & wyne, made of many graines into one body, which liuely setteth as it were be­fore our eyes our mutuall knitting and growing vp together as mēbers vnder [Page] one heade. Wherefore also Augustine calleth this mysterie the bonde of loue, which is expounded plainely by the A­postle. 1. Cor. 10. 17.

179. Question.

But why are there two Elementes giuen in the Supper, and but one in Baptisme?

Because Christ in Baptisme is set forth vnto vs as a Lauer, & water also onely suffiseth to washe away filthines. But in the Lords supper, forasmuch as Christ is set forth vnto vs as that hea­uenly nourishment, and this life needeth not onely eating, but also drinking, not without cause not onely bread but also wine is giuē in the supper of the Lorde, that we might knowe that wee ought to seeke our whole lyfe in Christ alone.

180. Question.

Doest thou therefore thinke the vse of that wine to be as necessary as the vse of that bread?

What els? And therefore that the vse of the Cupp was taken from Chri­stians [Page] not without the instinct of Sathan. Of which matter we will speake in the refutation of abuses.

181. Question.

But what doest thou thinke of ta­king the Sacrament with the hande, which also the Romish Church tooke away?

Albeit I wil not say, that the taking or touching with the hand is so precise­ly necessarie, as the other Sacramen­tall rytes (for he also receyueth that re­ceiueth with his mouth) yet notwith­standing, I thinke that this also ought to be restored in the Church. For it is more playne then that it can be denyed, that the auncient & Apostolical Church did the same: and it is playne, that this same thrusting of the bread into the mouth sprang first from a certaine pre­posterous and altogeather superstiti­ous reuerence of the Sacraments, as though men were vnworthie to handle the holy Elements, when as notwith­standing the mouth is more impure then the hande. To be short there, is no [Page] man but seeth, vnlesse it bee hee which hath no eyes, from whence this super­stition cōmeth, that same doting dreame of transubstantiation once beeyng re­ceiued.

182. Question.

Then thou much lesse allowest the taking away, of the breaking of bread.

Thou thinkest rightly. For this being taken away, the proportion or the analo­gie of the death of Christ is takē away, as we haue shewed before.

183. Question.

To cōclude thē, what thinkest thou of that, that eating is chaunged into adoration, caring about, & finally into an oblation for the quicke & the dead?

Surely that Sathā hath euen passed himself by bringing this impiety, seing that ther was neuer any such grosse ido­latry heard of, no not amongst the most prophane Gentiles.

184. Question.

Goe to then, let vs speake of the blessing or consecration.

Why, thou hast alreadie shewed what this thing is: forasmuch as by the name of consecration is vnderstood blessing.

So then I suppose that thou callest it, that which the diuines also cal san­ctification, that is to say, a translation from a common vse to a holy woor­ship of God. But against this inter­pretation there are certaine stoppes. For the Euangelistes doe vse in this selfe same argument of the supper, two Greeke woords commonly and indifferently one for another, the one to blesse, the other to giue thankes. Now that these doe differ within thē ­selues it may specially appeare by this, that to blesse, is alwayes taken transitiuely, but to giue thankes, al­wayes intransitiuely. Moreouer also that same common sanctification, to witte whereby it is brought to passe, that we may lawfully vse meates, is manifestly distingushed, from thanks giuing and prayers, as the consequēt [Page] from the antecedent.

It is an vsuall thyng with the He­brewes, whose phrase the writinges of the Apostles do sauour of, to vnderstand the consequent by the antecedent, there­fore to giue thankes, albeit it bee al­wayes set down absolutely, yet notwith­standing it is taken in this argument, for to sanctifie with thankes giuing: and againe this action of thankes giuing is spoken generally of prayers, the Apo­stle vsing the name of intercession, though in an vnequall thing, yet not al­together vnlyke. So also to blesse, whē it is attributed to God, is takē for too sanctifie, Moyses him selfe being inter­preter. Gen. 2. verse 3.

But that Christ in the history of the holy Supper, speaketh as a Medi­atour & as man, hereby it appeareth, that the Euangelistes, as I haue sayde, vse this worde, to giue thankes, indif­ferently, which by no meanes can be attributed to God.

Thou thinkest rightly. Therefore there is no doubt, but that in Paule 1. Cor. 10. 16. that which we blesse, Oe­cumenius hath interpreted out of the Hebrewe phrase and maner of speach, That which we prepare by blessing. Nowe blessing is referred partly to God and partly to the Elements them selues, as it is first instituted of Christ in this matter, as he who after his maner first blessed God his father, that is to say, gaue him thankes. In which respect also this mysterie may be cal­led a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgi­uing, and therewithall that the sonne as the Lorde of his fathers householde might sanctifie the elements taken, that they might not be that which they were by nature, but might beginne to be that sacramentally, to which aswell in signifying as in giuing and sealing they were by his will appoynted: so as also they might take the very names of the things signified, as if they were the same thing that sacramentally they sig­nified. Nowe that which was then first [Page] instituted and done of him, as it is per­formed by his commaundement, so also it is performed by his power, as of him who hath sayd, doe this.

185. Question.

But of this blessing there is no cer­taine fourme prescribed, specially concerning the action of giuing of thankes.

I graunt it. Therefore it was free for the Churches to prescribe a fourme of so many and so great benefites as was thought expedient: so that in the very substance of the matters they went not any whit from the written worde. And hereupon not onely that Canon, which they called the Greeke and Latin Canon, but also those mani­folde liturgies or fourmes of prayer, called by that name were encreased, interlined and corrupted by litle and litle, that not onely they became the very sincke of all superstition but [Page] also of all vngodlinesse.

186. Question.

But is there not also some kynde of fourme prescribed of the Sacra­mentall benediction?

Yes certes, it is prescribed in playne wordes of the three Euangelists and of Paule.

But why rather of this then of that?

Because it onely belongeth vnto Christ, to constitute and appoynt Sa­cramentes, by prescript wordes of him selfe, least whiles wee vary from the wordes, wee also straye from his will. Nowe it was not needefull to prescribe certayne set wordes which wee shoulde vse in the expounding of his institution, in prayer & in giuing of thankes. Ther­fore it ought to suffise vs to haue those things prescribed, according to the rule whereof, wee ought to require those of ours.

187. Question.

And what is that same Sacramen­tall forme?

Euen the same that is prescribed of the three Euangelistes and of Saynte Paule.

188. Question.

And yet these doe somewhat varie amongst themselues in wordes.

But in the matter it selfe they varie not any whit at all, therefore it skilleth not which of these thou folowe. But this same little variety in woordes sheweth that we must not sticke in the sillables themselues (which is altogether magi­call) but we must marke the significati­on of the wordes: Neither for al that, is it lawfull for vs to goe any whitte from the prescript wordes.

189. Question.

Thinkest thou not then these woordes are woorking and effectual wordes?

No indeede, if thou call them woor­king [Page] woordes wherein there should be some woorking force too woorke some secrete thing effectually. For that which I had sayde before, now I say a­gaine, that there is no other vse of those woordes then to declare his minde that speaketh. But if thou call them woorking woorks whereby is declared both what is doone of the Pastor, and what ought to be doone of the flocke, and also what God him selfe dooth, then I will say that they are all woor­king woordes. For those woordes, He tooke, he brake, and gaue to his dis­ciples, shew what Pastors ought to do. Againe those woordes, take yee, eate yee, drinke yee, shewe what the flocke ought to-doe. For it foloweth Do you this. Finally those woordes This is my bodie which is giuen for you, and this is my bloode of the newe testa­ment which is shed for you, signifie what himselfe woorketh and perfour­methin the minds of the hearers, in this action by his own power alone. For nei­ther are these things rehearsed in that action of the minister of the woorde [Page] historically: but that al may vnderstand that then these thinges are done, which our Lord commaunded to be done.

190. Question.

Wilt thou therefore that the insti­tution of our Lorde bee playnely re­hearsed?

Yea, not onely playnely, but in that tongue also, which may bee vnderstoode of the Hearers, aswell adding the expo­sition thereof, as also exhortation, that the minister bee no lette, but that eue­ry man may perceiue that which is done there himselfe. For why are all those thinges sayde, vnlesse it bee that they may bee vnderstoode of all the com­mers vnto it: And why must they bee vnderstood, vnlesse beeing vnderstoode they may be beleeued: For this cause the Apostle requireth that euery one ex­amine himselfe.

191. Question.

But in what thinges consisteth this same proouing of a mans selfe?

First in the knowledge of Christiā do­ctrine, & especially of this mystery, then [Page] the full persuasion of faith, thirdly to be short in true repentance.

192. Question

But who hath these thinges,

Whosoeuer is truely a Christian, forasmuche as these are the effectes of the spirite of adoption. But it is one thing to haue these thinges truely; ano­ther too haue them in euery thing per­fect. Yea if these things were perfect in vs, we should neyther neede the worde nor the Sacramentes: seeyng that wee vse them, too the ende that they beeyng begonne in vs, might bee daylie en­creased.

193. Question.

I haue hearde what thou hast saide ought to be done, aswel of the Mini­ster himselfe, as of those which come to the Lordes table. I aske thee there­fore, seeyng that the formall cause it selfe of the Sacramentes dependeth of the vse of the institution of our Lorde, if any fault bee in them whe­ther for that cause, the making of the Sacrament be hindered.

Let vs see this therfore by parts. The Benediction is principally put in the faythfull rehearsall of the institution of the Lord, & as I may say in a certain applying of the same vnto y ^e signes, more­ouer in the exposition thereof, adding exhortations and all other things, wher­by euery one may bee stirred vp to the vnderstanding and lawfull vse of these mysteries. Therefore the ouerpassing or rather peruerting of this institution, doeth so corrupt the act, that it neither can nor ought to be deemed the Lordes Supper. But other thinges not doone so rightly (no, not if there be a false expo­sition vsed) doe not yet corrupt the ac­tion, as which wholly dependeth vp­on the wil and institution of the Lord.

194. Question.

But what thinkest thou nowe of the breaking of the breade?

I thinke that the ouerpassing of that, doth not corrupt the act it selfe, be­cause it pertayneth not too the verie [Page] making of the Sacrament, but one­ly belongeth too the true and altoge­ther lawfull vse thereof: as a spotte in a fayre face doth indeede hurt the beauty, but yet notwithstanding it doeth not vt­terly abolish the forme it selfe.

195. Question.

And what thinkest thou of the ge­uing of the Sacrament?

Surely that the ouerpassing of the Sacrament it selfe doeth make, that that which was a Sacrament doeth cease too haue the reason of a Sacra­ment, forasmuche as the Sacraments were instituted to be vsed: like as waxe sealed with a common seale doeth dif­fer verie muche from priuate Waxe and not sealed: but vnlesse it bee ap­plied vnto an instrument it is accomp­ted as priuate Waxe.

196. Question.

What thinkest thou of taking, ea­ting and drinking?

Euen the very same.

197. Question.

But what if there bee any faulte in the person of him that maketh the Sacrament?

Surely this, that if hee bee a meere Priuate person the whole action is in vayne, as wee haue sayde in Bap­tisme, but if hee sitte in the chayre of the Ministerie, albeeit hee bee vn­lawfully called, if hee keepe the in­stitution of the Lorde, wee must thinke otherwise, as before we haue aunswea­red concerning Baptisme For the rea­son is one and the like of both in this behalfe.

What if hee teache falsely, or ouerflowe with vices, or thinketh or beleeueth nothing lesse then that hee doeth, is it therefore no Sacra­ment?

No, not so. Whatsoeuer the Sophi­sters babble of the intention (as they speake) of him that cōsecrateth. For the making and perfecting of the Sacra­ment dependeth wholly vpon the insti­tution of God, by whatsoeuer Minister he doeth it.

198. Question.

Doest thou thinke the like of their faulte, or of any vnwoorthinesse of those which do come vnto the Lords Table?

Yea altogether like. And by these it is easie to vnderstande what corruptions haue bene brought into the Churche of God, substituting in the place of the true blessing, a magicall mumbling: in the place of geuing and receiuing, an oblation for the quicke and the dead: breaking of bread being altogether ta­ken away, and geuing of thankes chan­ged into that same horrible carriyng a­bout and woorshipping of a most pro­phane peece of bread, whereof we will speake in their proper place.

199. Question.

Therefore vnworthy Ministers doe also minister the whole sacrament.

I graunt it.

Therefore they also that come vnwoorthily, doe receyue the whole Sacrament, seeyng they receiue that that is ministred.

I haue oftentimes greatly meruay­led at the efficacie of the spirite of error in this playne Sophisticall conclusion. But one errour hath brought foorth an other. For this beeing graunted, that both two, that is to say, aswel the E­lementes as the thing signified, that is, that Christ is geuen with his giftes to the bodie and too all, they haue con­cluded, that he that receiueth the Ele­ments, receiueth also the thing. But this ground of theyrs is most false. For neyther the matter of the Sacrament (that is to say, Christ himselfe) is offe­red to the handes and to the mouth, but to the minde and fayth, to wit too bee layde holde vppon spiritually as the bo­dily [Page] signes doe witnesse to the outward senses.

What then doest thou determine concerning this matter?

Forsooth, that the Elementes are re­ceiued of al, but the thing signified one­lie of the faithfull, albeit that both the Elementes and the things signified are ministred to all.

200. Question.

Thou saydest also in the beginning that the simple worde doth consist in two thinges, to wit, in the woordes themselues and in the thinges signi­fied by the woordes: and that there fore the Sacramentes are so farre off, from the simple and naked woorde, that they also are set before our eyes, & therefore are called of Augustine [visible words.] And therfore it may bee, yea that the most wicked doe vnderstand aswell the outward word it selfe, as the thinges signified by it, to wit, this by the sounde, but those by the vnderstanding. Why there­fore [Page] doest thou not thinke the like also in the Sacramentes: too witte, that both the Sacramentes and the thing signified: the Bread and the Wine, yea, and Christe too bee re­ceiued of all: of some too witte, of of the beleeuers too life, but of o­thers, too witte, of the vnwoorthie, to damnation?

First, that which thou sayest, too wit, that of whomsoeuer the outward woord is hearde, that they shoulde also per­ceiue that which is signified by it, thou knowest is not alwaies true. For it hath no place in them, who speaking in a strange tongue, so heare that they doe not vnderstand, which falleth out to most men vnder the papacie. Yea how manie doe heare those that speake vntoo them in a knowne tongue, who yet not­withstanding vnderstande not the ve­ry meaning of those things that are spo­ken: For therefore we goe to schooles, and to Schoolemaisters, not onely too learne the tongues, but especially that wee may vnderstande in deede those [Page] things, whose soundes we perceiue wel ynough. Now this thing is much more to be acknowledged in diuine then in common matters, and by their owne nature more agreeable to this our vn­derstanding. But goe to let vs graunt that that in the simple woorde and in the Sacrament, there is hearde and also vnderstoode of all that which is sig­nified by both: yet for all that I will not graunt, that the thing signified, that is to say, Christ, is receiued of any o­thers then of those that receiue him woorthily, that is to say, that come vn­to him with fayth. For this receiuing, which by a Sacramental figure (as we haue sayde before) in the woords of ea­ting & drinking is signified, & by the ef­fect is called of the Apostle the commu­nion or spiritual vnion, doth not only re­spect the hearing of our eares nor our vnderstanding onely, but declareth that which is the onely propertye of fayth alone, to witte the spirituall applica­tion of Christ himselfe.

201. Question.

Is not this the selfe same thing that some say, to wit that aswell the bread & the wine, as also the very bodie of Christ and his blood is receiued both of woorthy and vnwoorthy, but that the fruite of Christ is onely receiued of them which are indewed with faith?

No not so, the which I shall easily shewe thee by a fitte similitude. For let vs put the case that there is not onely declared by woordes to some sicke man of some learned Phisitiō in an vnkowne tongue, but also in very deed some such medicines set foorth which are required to the curing of him, and that the sicke man doeth neyther vnderstande what the Phisition sayeth, nor what is of­fered vnto him. And the Phisition hath doone his parte, who notwith­standing hath done that hee hath doone in vayne. Suche are they who come altogether vnwoorthie too the Lordes Table, beeyng altogether ignoraunte [Page] of those thinges that are there sayde and ministred, too whome neuerthe­lesse the whole Sacramentes are sette foorth. Yea lette vs put the case in the seconde place, that the sicke man in deede heareth what the Phisition sayeth, yet vnderstandeth not the mea­ning of his sayinges, eyther because hee is not attentiue, or else because hee is not skilfull of those thinges whereof hee heareth the Phisition entreating. Suche are they also who come them­selues vnwoorthely too the Lordes ta­ble, too witte, with a mynde not right­ly prepared to vnderstande those things which are doone there. Let vs further put the case that the sicke man doeth well vnderstande both his Speeches, and whatsoeuer the Phisition geueth him, but yet notwithstanding despy­seth the thinges hee hath both hearde and well vnderstoode. Nowe I de­maunde of thee, whether thou canst rightly say, that suche tyme of sicke men, eyther of the first or second or thirde sorte doe receyue the medi­cines [Page] that are offered them?

No not so. For the firste sorte neither receyue the woorde nor the thinges, the other onely vnderstand the woorde, finally the thirde sort though they vnderstand both, yet in verye deede they neg­lecte bothe the woorde and the thinges.

Thou thinkest rightly. For it is one thinge too vnderstande that whiche is sayde, another to apply that to thy selfe which thou vnderstandest, This Phisition of whome I speake is hee that rightly administreth the Sacramentes: the Elementes, and Sacramentall Ceremonies rightlye set forth, is the talke of this Phisition: The medecine that is offered is Christ him selfe with his giftes, the onely remedie against death only to be applyed vnto vs by the iustrument of faith as al the scripture witnesseth. Herupō gather how greatly they are deceiued [Page] which deceyue both themselues and o­thers, who reason so that they saye, when the whole sacraments, that is, as well the signes as the very body and blood of Christ himself, are ministred to al commers, that it is also receiued of al, albeit the fruites of the Sacrament are receiued of the faithful alone, as though forsooth Christ could otherwise be re­ceyued then to euerlasting life.

202. Question.

Yea, but doth not Christ also iudge, as he dooth saue? that is to say, is hee not set foorth aswell to iudgement of vnbeleeuers, as for the saluation of beleeuers?

Yes verely. But being receiued, he saueth: but beeing neglected, he iud­geth. Therfore it is not truely said, that he is receiued of some to life, but of o­ther some to death, albeit indeede hee be the sauiour of life vnto some, to wit, to them, of whom hee is receiued by fayth: but to other some a sauour of death, to witte, too them of whome hee is not receiued. For deathe is not [Page] of Christ, who is alwayes life, but of the contempt of Christe.

203. Question.

I pray thee let vs come at the length too that of whose exposition this controuersie seemeth chiefely to depend, to witte to the verie true and natiue exposition of the woords of the institution.

And which doest thou thinke too bee that same institution?

Too witte, this is my bodye that is giuen for you, and this is my bloode of the newe Testament, which is shedde for many, for the forgiuenesse of sinnes.

But I say, that the institution dooth comprehend not onely what is geuen: But also what is prescribed, both too the minister and too those [Page] which come to these mysteries. For all these thinges must concurre in this ac­tion.

That I may admitte this, yet not­withstanding I thinke that there is controuersie about these which I haue rehearsed.

Yea, and of others also. For thou knowest that there is question also what is broken: and the worde doe you, is taken of some for sacrifice you, and a­gaine for, make you the body & blood of Christ of bread, as of late, Santesi­us was not ashamed to write. But God willing we will weigh all these things in their proper place.

204. Question.

Nowe I pray thee proceede to the expounding of those things which I haue spoken of: and first of all, saye thou, howe thou thinkest that same This is my body, is to bee interpre­ted.

I say, that this same proposition dooth consist of a subiecte a Predicate and a coupling Verbe (as they speake in Schooles.) The subiect is declared by the pronoune, This, they attribute by the tearme of the Body, the copulatiue is the verbe substantiue is.

205. Question.

But what is the subiect?

Too witte the same that Christe reached foorth, taken and broken, to witte, that same breade as the Euangelistes doe expresse. Therefore the woord This, can declare nothing els but This Breade, too witte, the element of this action.

206. Question.

Nowe what is the attri­bute?

That same veryt bodye of Christe giuen, and that same bloode shedde for vs. And therefore those same determinations are added that is [Page] is giuen: and that is shedde.

207. Question.

And howe are these so ioyned to­geather, that the one may be sayde of the other?

To wit, this is the nature of thinges which be desparate or sundrie, that when they altogeather disagree in kinde, the one can not properly bee sayde of the other by no reason: because otherwise thinges should not bee discerned from thinges by their specificall fourme. Therefore if thou take this proposition properly, it shall bee no lesse false, that bread is the body of Christ, then that a gourde is a man. Therefore it must needes be a figuratiue speach.

But thou art not ignorant that the very letter is toughly mainteyned as wel of the defenders of transubstan­tiation as of consubstantiation.

So they say. But of them we shall say afterwardes. Nowe it is ynough for me to declare the doctrine of our [Page] Churches, and to shewe vpon what rea­son it standeth vntill that we shall con­fute the contrarie opinions.

208. Question.

In what thing then placest thou the figure? what? in the Subiect?

No, not so. For that same true bread taken, broken, and giuen is properly shewed in that pronoune.

What, onely the bread?

Yea, onely. For as we shall say in his place, it is not meete here in any case to set the figure Synechdoche. This notwithstanding is true, that so is shewed not simplie common bread, but Sacramentall bread, that is, bread appoynted to a Sacramentall vse.

209. Question.

What, doest thou place a figure in the predicate?

I knowe that certaine men doe charge vs so, and that not in one kinde of sclaunder. For some doe accuse vs as [Page] though we should heere vnderstād by the bodie of Christ, the Church: as though forsooth wee should bee so madde, not to marke that those wordes, which is giuē for you, can not bee vnderstoode of the mysticall bodie: or as though in the o­ther member there should be ment some mysticall blood. But others because we interprete the bodie the Sacrament or the signe of the bodie, by and by they cō ­clude, that wee make a double bodyed Christ, or els that we attribute (I cānot tel what) phantastical bodie, of which notwithstanding God be thanked, ney­ther of both is admitted of vs. For wee are so far of frō that, that we should say that another then that true and onely bo­die of Christ giuen for vs, is to be said of that bread, that we contrariwise contend that whole Christ God & man, is there denominated of another nature, to wyt, the bodily, and that for that cause which we haue shewed before.

210. Question.

But if the figure be neither in the Subiecte nor in the Predicate, it is no where.

Thou gatherest not rightly. For thou omittest the third, that is to say, the copulatyue which knitteth the sub­iect with the attribute. I say then that the figure is in the very kynde of attri­bution, that is, that in very deede the true bodie and properly taken, is sayde also of the true bread properly taken, but figuratiuely, not properly. So if wee say that Circumcision is the couenaunt: or the Scepter is the kingdome, or that the Paschall Lambe was Christe, it must needes be that the figure be placed neither in the Subiect nor in the Attri­bute: but in the Copulatiue or kinde of attribution.

211. Question.

Why therefore doe you interprete the body the Sacrament, or the signe or figure of the body?

It is all one to say, that that bread is the bodye of Christe, but not [Page] properly, but not as it signifyeth the same Sacramentally: and to say that the bread is not that body, but onely the Sacrament of that body. There­fore that difference that our aduersaries obiect here vnto vs, is most vayne and foolish. That the fathers aswel Greeks as Latines, haue spoken both wayes, it is more often shewed of our men, then that we ought so often to repeate their sayings.

212. Question.

But nowe what manner of figure sayest thou that this is?

I say that it is a Sacramental Me­tonymia, whereby is brought to passe, that the name of the thing Sacramen­tally signified, is giuen to the signe: or whereby the signe is said to be the thing it selfe, to the signifying whereof it is giuen: the which thing I haue prooued before by many like examples.

Why doest thou so often beate that same word [Sacramentally] into our heades?

That I may alwayes meete with that same shamefull sclaunder of theirs, who as often as they heare the name of signe and signification, they crye out that we make the Supper of the Lorde of none effect, and as it were transfourme it into an idle picture. Vn­derstande therefore a Sacramentall Metonymia to be that figure, whereby is brought to passe, that the signe is sayde to be that thing, for the signify­ing whereof it is so offered to the out­warde senses by a fitte analogie and proportion, and by the will of God, that therewithall is offered to the vnder­standing and to fayth that same thing signified, to bee receyued and sealed truely and in very deede.

213. Question.

But it is harde that some thing should be sayd to be that, that onely it signifyeth to the minde.

Naye rather as I haue before taught, this same figuratiue kinde of speaking is much more fitte and ex­presse, [Page] and therfore also more vsual, then if by proper speaking the signes shoulde be saide to signifie some thing. For when they are said to be the thing it selfe that they signifie, they altogether leade the mynde of the beholder from the visible thing, to behold the inuisible, and to lay holde vppon it by Fayth: which is the ende of Sacramentes.

Notwithstanding, I would haue this confirmed vnto me, by plaine & euident reasons, to wit, that these pro­positions, This is my body &c &. This is my blood. &c are to bee taken figura­liuely.

I will doe it, and that gladly. For what can be more acceptable vnto mee, then so to open this trueth that all cou­lour and sleight being remooued, it may be seene of all men euen as it is. Now I will so order my proofes that in the first place I will bryng myne argu­mentes from these very woordes of the institution, This is my bodie: and se­condly of the reason which is takē from [Page] the affirmation of the Subiect. Nowe that, that wee shall say of the bodie, I woulde also to bee vnderstoode of the blood.

214. Question.

Nowe then, what is thy first argu­ment?

That which he tooke, brake, and rea­ched, the Lord commaunded to bee ta­ken and eaten. This same hee sayde to be his bodie.

But he tooke that very same breade, brake it and deliuered it, &c. the Euan­gelistes witnessing the same.

Therefore hee sayde, that that same bread was his bodie. But thinges that are vnlyke contrary in nature, can not be spoken properly of them selues. But bread and the bodie of Christ are things disagreeing by nature. Therefore they can not properly be sayde the one of the other. It remayneth therefore, that, for­asmuche as this speeche of Christe is true, it bee vnderstoode figuratyue­ly.

215. Question.

But what now is the other argumēt?

In euery proper and reguler affir­mation of the Subiect, eyther the ge­nerall worde, or the worde of proper­tie, or the worde of accident is affirmed of the speciall: or the speciall of the singular, but the body of Christ is neyther the generall worde, nor the worde of differencie, nor the worde of propertie, nor the worde of accident. nor the speciall in respect of the bread. Therfore it can by no maner of meanes be sayd of the bread. Notwithstanding it is said and that truely, when it is spo­ken of Christ. Therefore figuratiuely.

216. Question.

Shewe also the thirde.

If the body of Christ be spoken pro­perly and regularly of this bread, then the things that agree to the body, agree to the bread, and contrariwise. But to be borne of the virgine Marie, to bee hungrie to die for vs, to be crucified, to rise againe &c, agree to the bodye of [Page] Christ, but not vnto bread, And contra­riwise to bee sowen, reaped, threshed, kneded, & baked, agree in deed to bread: but by no meanes to the body, therefore by a reguler and common vsuall maner of speach, the bread can not be sayd to be the body of Christ.

217. Question.

Shewe the fourth.

If that be a naturall proposition, ey­ther the same is sayd of it selfe, or els not the same, but a contrarie. But ney­ther of both is true. Therefore it can not be a naturall proposition, That the same can not be said of it selfe, it appea­reth plainely by these reasons. First be­cause in any identicall proposition, that is, where the same thing is affirmed of the selfe same, the Subiect & the predi­cate must not differ in the thing, but in the name onely: as when I say a blade is a sworde, as a target is a shield, the sonne of the virgin is Christ, but bread and the body of Christ are not words of the same signification, but thinges alto­geather diuers: therefore they make not [Page] an identicall Proposition. But if nowe An identicall proposition is a proposition af­firmatiue of it selfe. some froward person will haue one and the same substance too bee declared in these two words, first ye must shew that neither bread ceaseth to be bread, nor y ^e the bodie ceaseth to be a bodie. Further­more in a proposition Identical, the sub­iect and predicate are conuertible, or standing one for an other. Therefore if this proposition were identicall or one, the bodie of Christ might as truely bee said to be baked in an Ouen, as it is tru­ly saide that bread is the body giuen for vs. Therfore it is not as the schoolemen speake, an identicall proposition.

Now againe, that nothing diuers, is herein naturally said, is thus prooued by a necessary consequence. If the body as some thing diuers should bee regulerly spoken of bread, surely eyther it should be spoken essentially, or as the cause, or as accidentary. We haue shewed in the seconde argument that it is not spoken essentially, as neither being vnto breade as the general, or as the difference, nor as the special, in respect of the singular. Now it can much lesse be the causal af­firmation. [Page] For neither hath a bodie the reason in respect of bread, of the effici­ent cause, nor of the end: but the inward causes, to wyt, the matter and fourme are referred to the essential affirmation. Finally, it can not bee any accidentall affirmation, for as much as the body is no accident, yea and though it were, yet it can not be an accident to bread.

It remaineth therefore, that by ney­ther of both wayes, that same can be, ei­ther a naturall or a proper Propositi­on.

218. Question.

Tell the fift.

If that same bread were properly the bodie of Christe, it shoulde also be personally vnited to the Sonne of God, Of which should folow those same three most absurd and false thinges, that the sacramentall & personall vnion are one and the same, that Christ in this Sacra­ment [Page] should consist of three natures per­sonally, essentially vnited & knit togea­ther: to be short, that the bread and the wine should be aduaunced into a condi­tion infinitely better then the Church it selfe. For so the bread should properly be the very body of Christ: but y ^e Church should be the body of Christ but figura­tiuely or mystically: neyther is there any faythfull man that is very Christ, but onely a partaker of Christ.

219. Question.

I pray thee adde also the sixt.

If that same bread bee properly the body of Christ, & that same wine proper­ly the blood of Christ, as they are distinct signes, so also the body shalbe separated from the blood: or either signe shalbe properly whole Christ. Nowe if this la­ter be true, the letter shal not simplie be kept, but a synechdoche must be placed: as for example it must haue bene sayde properly, This bread is my body and my blood: and this cup is my blood and my body. And to what purpose I pray you had there needed a double ele­ment?

220. Question.

And wilt thou adde as so the seuēth?

That which is sayde to be with ano­ther thing, or in an other, or vnder an o­ther, without commixtion beeyng also ioyned with a most neere knitting to­gether, cannot properly be sayde too bee that thing it selfe: As for example sake although the soule and the bodie be ioy­ned togeather personally and insepara­bly, yet notwithstāding no man wil say y ^e the bodie is the soule, or the soule is the bodie. Much lesse therefore the sacra­mental coniunctiō shal bring this thing to passe, that the bread shall properly be the very body of Christ.

221. Question.

Wilt thou also rehearse the eight?

If that same bread be properly the bodie of Christe, then it shoulde sease to bee bread, forasmuch as these twoo thinges are wholly in kinde vnlike. But if it cease to be bread, now the sacrament shall not consist of these two thinges one earthly and the other heauenly, vnlesse [Page] thou call the earthly shadowes, that is to say, accidences without a subiect. But these being ouerthrowne, the proportion of substances shalbe also ouerthrowne, & therefore the whole reason of a sacramēt shalbe ouerthrowne. It must needes bee therefore, that that breade be called the body of Christ figuratiuely.

But now I come to the other ranke of argumentes, to witte, drawen from those wordes which goe before and fol­lowe those former, This is my bodie, and from the circumstaunces and confe­rences of other places of the Scryp­ture.

222. Question.

Tell the first.

I say out of the former woordes, too wit, he tooke and brake, that this is playne, that that which he tooke coulde not properly of Christe hee called his owne bodie, as of whom it coulde not bee sayde that hee tooke, helde and brake himselfe to himselfe, but as one that gaue and brake the breade of hys body receiued in too his handes, to his [Page] Disciples manifestly beholding him. Therfore August. that he might molli­sie, that same sacramental Metonymia he sayde that Christ did after a certaine sort beare himselfe in his owne handes, namely, least it shoulde seeme to bee a vayn Sacrament, the name of the thing signified is geuen vntoo the signe: The same also is to be thought of the cup, as wee shall shew in his proper place, into which vndoubtedly, Christ had neuer yet powred foorth that same blood of his conteyned in his body.

223. Question.

Tell the other.

If the body should properly be spokē of the bread, and the blood of the wine, then the words folowing should proper­ly also be spoken of the bread which is geuen for you: & which is shedde for you, both which is most false.

224. Question.

Rehearse the thirde.

By that that is added, Do this in the remembrance of me, it is playne that [Page] the body is not properly so called of the bread, nor the blood of the wine, because they were there present toge­ther in the same place whereas bread & wine were: Nowe remembrance is not of thinges present, but of thinges ab­sent. Therfore Bernard in his 33. sermō vppon the Canticles disputing of the selfe same thing, opposeth Faith, and the shewe (that is, that that is seene with the eyes) and also remembrance and presence.

225. Question.

Shew the fourth argument.

The same appeareth playnely by those woordes that are added, 1. Cor. 11. 16. As often as yee shall doe this, yee shall shewe foorth the Lordes death till hee come. Verily hee that shall come is not yet come, or if hee bee nowe properly come, these mysteries are no longer to be celebrated. Now all these thinges followe, not onely if the bread be properly the bodie, but also if, within, or vnder the Bread and Wyne hee bee present in the selfe [Page] same place where there is bread and wine.

226. Question.

Declare the fift.

So I gather it from the Circum­staunce of the time. At what time the Lorde sayde of that wine, This is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes, as yet it was not shedde foorth out of the vessell of the bo­die of Christ, neyther euer after is it read to be gathered in any vessel. Ther­fore in that cuppe then there was not properly that blood of Christ shedde for vs betweene the handes of the tormen­tours, neither nowe also is it. Muche lesse therfore was that wine thē or now is that same blood properly shed for vs. But that same proposition is figuratiue which testifieth vnto vs, that wee truely and spiritually through faith are parta­kers of Christ himselfe and of his passi­on and of all other his giftes.

227. Question.

Declare the sixth,

I gather also by that, that Chryso­stome hath written, that Christ hym­selfe was a Partaker of those signes. Hom. in Matth. 83. But if his body shoulde be spoken properly of that bread which Christ did eate, and his blood of that Wine which Christ dranke, then shoulde Christ properly eate and drinke himselfe.

228. Question.

Shew the seuenth.

I geather out of other places of the scripture, that this is not a proper pro­position. For as often thinges vnlike are attributed to the same subiect, it must needes be that some of these be ta­ken properly, and some figuratiuely, w ^c I set foorth by examples thus: The Go­spell is called the power of God to sal­uation. Rom. 1. 16. And in the beginning of the same chapter it is called the doc­trine reuealed from aboue, concerning the Sonne of God: which two foras­muche as they are diuerse, it must needes bee vnderstoode that one bee spoken properly and the other figura­tiuely.

It is geathered not darkely out of Iohn the 17. 3. that Fayth is the know­ledge of the true God & of Iesus Christ, whereby we are saued. The same is de­fined also to be the groūd of those things which are not. Therefore one of these Heb. 11. 1. must needs be spoken poperly, the other figuratiuely.

Iohn is not Elias: Iohn. 1. 21. And he is that Elias that shal come. Mat. 11. 14. Therfore in one of those we must needs grant, that there is a figure.

It is playne that Herode was pro­perly a man. The same also is called a Foxe, one of these therefore must be vnderstoode to be spoken figuratiuely. Of which, infinit examples might be allea­ged: & yet notwithstāding these are not alleaged by me, as though they were, to be expounded by the same figure, but to shew that that I haue sayd is true: to wit, as often as vnlike thinges are spo­ken of the same Subiect, the one of them must bee a proper attribution, the other figuratiue.

But the cup, that is to say, the wyne conteyned in the cup, is sometime saide to be blood, sometime saide to bee the Testament in blood: and yet notwith­standing it is plaine that the selfe same is properly the licoure of the Wine, as it is called of Christe. It is not therefore properly mans blood, and much lesse also it is properly the last Testament of ones wyll that shall dye: but it is called blood, because it is the Sacrament of his blood, whereby that same couenaunt or Testament of the re­mission of sinnes and of euerlasting life, is stricken with vs: the same also is the Testament in blood, because it is the pleadge of his Testament which is sea­led and ratified by the blood of the Lord As the Lorde also in Moses in the same place when had called Circumcision the couenant, himselfe doeth afterwardes interprete it too bee the signe of the couenant.

229. Question.

Shew the eight.

The conference of that place, the [Page] 1. Cor. 10. 16. with the wordes of Christ in which he calleth that same bread his bodie, & that same cup his blood: where that same bread is called the communi­on of his body & that same cup the com­munion of his blood, doeth altogether shewe that bothe these sayinges are figuratiue, or at least wise one of them too witte, eyther that of Paule or that of Christ.

To wit that of Paule, is to bee ex­pounded out of the proper saying of Christ.

Therefore at the length thou arte brought too confesse that whosoeuer doeth mainteine and defende figures in the controuersie of the Sacraments, doe not ouerthrowe the Testament of the Sonne of GOD. But to the matter. It is easie too shewe out of our seuenth Argument, and out of that that went next before, that both these were figura­tiue, whether thou doe interprete that out of this, or this out of that: as for example both these Propositions, This cup for this Wine is my blood: [Page] and this wine is the communion of my bloode: (nowe the like is too bee thought of breade) it is diuers from this, this wine is the licour of the vine, which notwithstanding thou must needes say is most proper, and therefore so stoutly to bee maintened, because as we haue saide, ouerthrowing or taking away the substaunce of the signe, the foundation of the analogy or proportion shoulde also bee taken away and ouer­throwen.

I would answeare that both Christ and Paule passed this ouer as a thing sufficiently knowen. For to what pur­pose shoulde he haue taught his Dis­ciples, that that bread which he held in his handes, was breade, and that wine? But vndoubtedly it behooued him to teach them that, which other­wise they woulde neuer haue belee­ued, too witte, that those thinges also which hee helde in his handes and gaue them, in, vnder, or with Bread and Wyne: was his body and his blood.

Therefore thou must needes deter­mine that the figure Synecdoche is in these woordes, This breade and this cuppe, and therefore whilest thou stu­diest to auoyde figures, thou fallest into a figure. But we will way this Synec­doche in his place, to wit, when we shal come too the confutation. But thou in the meane time shalt not so escape. For with what manner and with how great coniunction soeuer thou shalte couple those two vnlike thinges in themselues indeede togeather, (suche as are the bread and the body, wine and the blood, yet notwithstanding thou shalte neuer bring to passe, that the one may proper­ly be sayd to be the other. No neyther in the coniunction, can one be sayde to be the other, but eyther of them must bee made a certayne thirde thing. There­fore this at the least must bee a proper proposition, in, or vnder, or with this bread and wine is my body & blood. It remayneth therefore that thou con­fesse, that both this saying of Christe, and that of Paule, whether thou [Page] interprete this out of that, or that out of this, be figuratiue.

230. Question.

Howe therefore doest thou thinke this place of Paule shoulde bee ex­pounded?

First of all they are to be confuted, who take the Greeke word [...] w ^c signifieth common for distribution, which the matter it selfe cryeth out too be most absurd, forasmuch as bread and wine are substances, but distribution is an action: and Paule himselfe expoun­ding that, vseth a woorde that signifieth to participat, and the scope it selfe of the Apostle requireth that it declare a com­munion and not a distribution. Moreo­uer it is woonder that they who allowe no trope in the matter of the Sacramēt, that they can in this place interpret the cōmunicating of the body for the bodie communicated or distributed: that is, cā confound the action w ^t the effect. For neither in good sooth doe they this well, because they referre this distribution to the word of breaking as though Paule [Page] had written, the bread which we distri­bute is the body cōmunicated. For the word of breking ought to be taken pro­perly in this action as wee haue shewed before, and it appeareth by the word he gaue, which is added to the woorde hee brake, in the narration of the Euan­gelist.

What therefore thinkest thou [...] to be called?

Commmunion and felowship which is the true signification of his word, & it differeth somwhat frō [...] as Chry­sost. noteth, although Paule vseth the verbe [...] and [...] indifferently one for the other. Such as the Com­munion is therefore, that is to say, the naturall societie of all men in the com­mon nature of flesh & blood, as between themselues & with Christ himselfe: such is the communion by the goodnesse of God betwixt al the faithful & Christ, in­to whom they are engraffed and incor­porated.

But by what maner of speach may [Page] that breade bee said to be that same felowship and communion.

With the Logitians it is called a causall affirmation, whereby the proper effect is attributed to the proper cause, whether it bee materiall or effici­ent: w ^c manner or fashion is to be refer­red to the fourth maner of affirming by it selfe, as they speake in the schooles. Now a figuratiue speach is when the ef­fect is put for the cause, or else forsooth for the very efficient cause: as for exam­ple, when Christ is called the resurrec­tion & the life, for the rayser and giuer of life: or the cause of resurrection & life: or for the materiall cause, as when Paule sayeth, You are my glory or reioycing, y ^e is to say the matter of my glory or reioycing; or for the instrumen­tal w ^c also is it self, efficient, [...] that is to say, being as it were an vnder seruer, as when the Gospel is said to be the power of God to saluation, that is to say, the instrument that God vseth ef­fectually too saue vs. So also in this place that same Breade and that [Page] same wine are sayde to be that com­munion, that is to say, the instrumentes whereby that same consociation and fe­lowship of ours is wrought and ratified in vs. Now this same instrument is sacramentall or rather symbolicall and not the verye efficient cause, which is the holy Ghost. Therefore as that same figuratiue proposition of Christe, This bread is my body is expoūded by this, This bread is sacramental my bodie: so also this saying of Paul, This bread is the communication of my bodie, is to be expounded by this proper. This bread is the Sacramental instrument of our consociation and felowship with the bodie of Christ. For there the figure is onely in the Copulatiue, that knitteth the matter together, to wit, a Sacramental Metonymie or translati­on: but heere also in the attribute is a figure which they call Metalepsis, too witte, putting the effecte for the cause.

231. Question.

But canst thou besides bring forth any other argumentes?

Yea that can I. And first of all that same from the essentiall and constitu­ting fourme of all the Sacramentes, which is in summ, that they may consist of the signe and the thing signified, or as Irenaeus speaketh, of an earthly and heauenly thing. But nowe neyther can that that is signified be spoken of the signe, nor the signe of the thing signified but by the figure of Metonymie: and therefore the propositions of the first kinde are declared by the verbe [signifi­eth] (vnderstand of the sacramental sig­nification to which also the giuing or ministration is alwayes adioyned) but the latter by the Verbe Passiue: as this breade is my bodye, that is, This breade sacramentally signifieth my bodie: my bodie is this breade: that is, my bodie sacramentally is signified by this bread. Now that this is the essentiall fourme of all sacramēts it appeareth by the verie name of sa­cramentes, as witnesseth Augustine in these woordes, in his. 5. Epistle: It were ouerlong (saith hee) to dispute of the [Page] varietie of signes which when they belong to holy thinges are called sa­craments. It appeareth also by this that that is common to all sacraments.

As in the tree of life, in that it is a sacrament, there is considered the out­ward thing and the signe, the visible plant the spiritual & heauenly thing Ie­sus Christ, life: In the tree of the knowledge both of good and euell, a naturall plant also, and the experience of good and euill: in Circumcision, the cutting off the foreskinne, and the taking a­way of sinne, the imputation of righte­ousnes and regeneration: in the passe­ouer the Lambe and Christ: in the rock of the desert, the rocke and Christ pou­ring out bloode: in the Baptisme of the cloude, the cloudes and the sea and the blood of Christ: in Manna, breade gi­uen by miracle, and the flesh of Christ: In the Sabboth the seauenth day with ceasing from woorke and the mortifica­tion of the flesh and euerlasting life: In the Sacrifices the offering slayne, and the oblation of Christ made by himselfe in the Sanctuarie, the entrance intoo [Page] into the Temple and heauen in the Tabernacle, the woorke made with hand and the bodie of Christ: in the Cherub in the Images ouer the Arke, and the Angelles: in the propitiatory or mercie seate, the gilded couering, and Iesus Christ. So in the appea­ring of the doue, the doue and the holy Ghost: in baptisme, water with wa­shing, and the blood of Christ washing vs: in the fierie tongues, the naturall fire and the holy Ghost. Finally euen so in the Supper of the Lorde, breade and wine, the signes, and the body and bloode our Lorde the thinges Sacra­mentally signified.

But manie of these are ra­ther types then Sacramentes.

Admitte it be so, yet this not­withstanding is the fourme of all symbolicall speeches concerning God. Therefore in the verie writings of the Apostles they are called, Signes, Seales, Types, Figures, [Page] parables, shapes & resemblances. And of the Fathers also, besides that they are called figures, they are called my­steries, types, significations, simili­tudes, darke speeches, and mysticall Symbolles, and by suche like names.

What doest thou therefore con­clude of all these?

That neyther the thing signified can be sayde of the signe, nor the signe of the thing signified, otherwyse then by translation, and that, that is so vsuall in the scriptures, as that they neuer in a maner speake otherwise.

232. Question.

But the Supper of the Lorde hath a certaine proper and speciall fourme which maketh that the same is not too bee thought of that, whiche is to bee thought of the other Sacra­ments.

Albeit, that this specially belong vn­to those confutations which I woulde [Page] differ to their proper place, notwith­standing that the force of the former ar­gument may appeare more clearely, go too, let vs speake somewhat also nowe cōcerning this matter. Indeede I graūt that the Supper of the Lorde hath his peculiar fourme, whereby it differeth from the rest, aswell olde as newe Sa­cramentes. But to what ende is this: For these fourmes, which are called dis­cerning fourmes, because they doe dis­cerne the specials of the same generall, they doe not take away the constituting in which of necessitie all the specialls must be constituted, that they may bee referred to the common general. So for example sake, a liuing creature is the common essential fourme, and substance of all fourmes perteyning to that gen­der. Now reason is the fourme, where­by man is sundred from all other kindes of liuing creatures. Nowe wilt thou say that this same speciall fourme doth bring to passe that that same generall (to wit, liuing creature) should not be layde altogether by the same reason of man and of other liuing creatures: And [Page] I pray thee, how if that which is called differentia or proprium: for nowe I doe not distinguish betwixt these, should al­together take away the same attributi­on of gender, should the distinction con­sist of gender and difference: Therfore that same speciall difference of the lords Supper whatsoeuer it be, can not bring to passe that that same common reason which maketh a Sacrament, altoge­ther by the same meane, should lesse be spoken of the Lords Supper, then of other Sacramentes. Nowe that same common reason, as we haue shewed, is that the outwarde signe should signifie a­nother thing sacramentally. Nowe no­thing is a signe of it selfe, forasmuch as a signe is in the kynde of those thinges which are conferred with another, ther­fore that same remaineth common with­out exception to all Sacraments, that the thing signified is not the signe: be­cause these two must bee in very deede, and therefore the thing signified, can not be sayde of the signe but transitiuely.

But furthermore here I will demaund of thee what manner of difference thou [Page] makest this to be:

One in the Subiect, an other in the attribute, the third in the very meanes of the attribution.

And what in the Subiect?

Because the Elements of the Sup­per of the Lorde, are diuers from the Element of Baptisme.

Be it so. But what in the Attri­bute?

Because the bodie and blood of our Lord, are the signified thinges of the Supper of the Lord.

Thou art deceyued. For in Baptisme also the blood of the Lorde is the thing signified. But what in the attributi­on?

Because onely the Elements of the Lordes Supper are sayde in the words of the institution to be the very body [Page] and the very blood of our Lord.

And what wylt thou conclude there­of?

Forsooth that in Baptisme, the ve­ry blood of Christ is not present and giuē, but onely the fruit of the blood shead: but that in the Supper the bo­dy it self, and the blood it selfe is pre­sent, and offered to the mouth it selfe.

Whether these thinges are truely sayde or no, we will see in theyr place. But I pray thee doest thou not marke that thou playest the Sophister?

Why so?

Because thou chaungest the que­stions For wee did not demaund whe­ther the matter of the Lordes Supper and of other Sacramentes were one and the same, but whether in another kynde of attribution that same matter [Page] of the Lordes Supper, (whether it bee onely the fruite, or it be Christ himselfe) be sayde otherwyse of the bread & wyne, then the matter whether it bee the same or another, is sayde of other signes. Ad­mit then that I graunt that which thou hast sayde, yet notwithstanding there shall not bee diuers kindes of attributi­ons, but also onely diuers thinges shal­be attributed. And surely vnlesse it were so, that is, if the thing signified were o­therwise sayde of the signe in the Sup­per of the Lorde, then in other Sacra­mentes and also in other types, they should not be referred to the same kynd, for that same generall fourme shuld not be the essentiall fourme of all: euen lyke as if a liuing creature shoulde bee sayde of a man in any other respect then of a horse, a liuing creature shoulde not be the common genus or kynd of a man and a Horse.

233. Question.

Wilt thou therefore that there shal bee no speciall fourme of the Lordes Supper?

God forbid. But I saye that the speciall fourme is partly in the proper Elementes and rytes, partly not in the attribute it selfe, but in the qualitie of that attribute: that is to say, because Christe is the matter of both Sacra­ments, in Baptisme verely he is set out to vs, as the lauer and sealing vp of our entraunce into the Churche; but in the Supper, as the heauenly nourishment of those that are entred in.

234. Question.

I meane this, that the very body of Christ & his very blood in very deede is present, in or vnder, or with that bread and that wyne in the Lordes Supper, but not so in the water of Baptisme.

Thou resistest therefore their doc­trine, who teache that the humanitie of Christ also is euery where present according to the very substaunce. But nowe let vs leaue this. Doest thou not see that the question is agayne chaunged of thee? For neyther dyd wee indeede [Page] seeke that whether the thing signified were present in the selfe same place where that breade and that wine was, or whether it were absent: but this we demaunded in what kinde of attributi­on the thing signified eyther present or absent might be saide of the signe pro­perly or figuratiuely: and whether it might be said in an other kinde of attri­bution of the elemēts of the Lords sup­per then of the elementes of other Sa­craments. The question therfore of pre­sēce or absēce maketh nothing to y ^e matter, neither cā by any maner of meanes bring to passe, that that which is, or is giuen, in, vnder, or with somewhat, eyther present or absent, shoulde there fore be sayde properly too bee that ve­rye thing, in, vnder, or with which it is.

235. Question.

Let vs goe forewarde then to other arguments.

I set downe therefore first of all that which is most true, that the bodie of Christ is truely an organicall and a na­turall bodie, the which nature hee had neyther then put of, when he instituted the supper, neither afterwardes did his glorie take it away frō him. I set down also this, that Christ properly is saide, according to the flesh, too bee ascended, that is, gone out of the earth vpwardes, aboue the heauens, hauing chaunged the situation of his place.

I sette downe also this thirde thing, too witte, that he shall not re­turne from thence whether hee ascen­ded, before that day wherein hee is looked for too come againe.

These groundes beeing thus layde, so I gather: If that breade bee properlye that verye bodye, and that Wyne properly that verye blood, Yea further, if the Bodie and Bloode be properly in, vnder, or with the breade and wine, they are then in the same beeing and occupying of a roome, and in verye deede are [Page] also present togeather, and in the selfe same moment there is present in as ma­ny places that same body and that same blood, as that same bread and that same wyne are present.

But this thing and they holde not in any fourme of argument or reason. But they are most certayne. Both these opi­nions therefore, seeing they are agaynst the analogy of Fayth, are false.

Notwithstanding both are witnessed in the holy scriptures, both therefore of necessitie must be true.

But two contradictoryes, if they be properly taken, can not bee true. Of these therefore of necessitie, one must bee taken properly, the other figuratiuely.

But who will agree vntoo these groundes?

Surely whosoeuer is a Christian. For he that denyeth that the body taken of the sonne of God was a true, & ther­fore an organicall body, he is a Martio­nite, and not a Christian. Hee that deny­eth, that Christe came according to his [Page] fleshe thither whether hee came, & went away whence hee went, and therefore was not truely absent and present in cer­taine places, he is refelled by the hysto­ry of the Gospell. He that taketh away the proprietie of a naturall body, (that is to say, which is not in any other place then wherein it is limited) eyther from the tyme of that substantiall vnyon, or from the tyme of his ascention, hee is an Eutichyan and not a Christian. They also that interprete the ascentiō of Christ after the mutation of qualitie and not of place, and interprete the heauens into which hee ascended allegorically, they are refelled also by the hystorie it selfe, and by the analogie and proportion of Fayth, and that they may deny one vsu­all type & figure, and altogether agree­able to the proportion of Fayth, they bring in innumerable figures disagree­ing from the proportion of Fayth. Fi­nally, they that thinke that the proprie­tie of the woordes in the hystorie of the ascention can stande with that reall pre­sence, [Page] eyther by consubstantiō, or by trā ­substātiatiō, they maintein two cōtradictiōs at once to w ^c contradictiō that there is no place, neither in nature nor in the mysteries of faith, we wil shewe in his place. This collection therfore standeth sure & is inuincible: Christ according to the flesh properly, is gone frō vs aboue the heauens, not to come againe from thence, before that he shal come to iudge both the quicke and the deade. There­fore neyther the breade which is in the earth, is properly the very fleshe of Christ, neyther the fleshe of Christ is properly in, or with, or vnder the breade.

Yea but this same proposition Bread; this is my bodie, is no other wise true, nowe, then when Christe spake it, yea, therefore nowe it is true, because then it was true, to witte, by the vertue of the same institution. But then was hee himselfe present. Therfore now also the same presence [Page] is required.

Of this we shal see afterwards. Now I saye agayne, whether the bodie of Christ be determined to bee present or absent, yet notwithstanding that that cannot stand, that that breade shoulde be properly sayd to be the very body of the Lord. Now I proceede to those ar­gumentes which are taken from the true properties of mannes fleshe.

236. Question.

Say on therefore.

He that ouerthroweth the essentiall propertie of any thing, ouerthroweth the thing it selfe: because the definition being ouerthrowen, the thing defined is ouerthrowen.

But to be limited and conteyned in a place is the essētial property of a body.

Therefore he that taketh away the limitation of place from the bo­die of Christe; hee abolisheth the very body it selfe. The proposition nee­deth no proofe. The assumption is playne by the definition of the bodie, [Page] because it is sayd to be a diuisible quan­titie, according to a threefold measure, length, bredth and thicknes, and whose partes are bounded with one common bounde, that is to say, the superficies. Also from the diffinition of a place. For a place is that, through which a touch is made both of that which conceineth, & of that which is conteined.

237. Question.

But I did thinke that a place was not the essence or substance of the bodie.

So the Sophisters trifle. Neyther doe we say, that a place is the matter of the bodie, but placing as I may say necessarily and in it selfe is proper too bodies: Neither doe we then consider the body as the matter, but as the quantitie. Therefore Augustine speaking very wel of the glorified bodie of Christ it selfe, If it be a bodie (sayth he,) then is it in a place. And take away spaces from the bodyes, and they shall bee no bodies.

But let vs proceede.

Hee taketh away the limitation of place, which contendeth that one and the selfe same body can be euerie where and in manie places at once pro­perly.

This euerie one doeth, which tea­cheth eyther that this bread is proper by the bodie of our Lorde, or in verie deed wil haue it to be present, in, with, or vnder the breade, and to be giuen too the outwarde senses in as many places as the Supper of the Lorde is cele­brated.

Therefore. &c.

I knowe that manie flee vnto the distinction of a bodie supernaturall, certaine also vnto that common starting­hole of the omnipotencie of God. But to what endeserues this? For the natu­ral, generall, and essentiall fourme, by which euerie bodie is a bodie, being ta­ken away it shall follow, that that body ceaseth to be a body, from which that same essentiall fourme of a body is ta­ken away, & they play the Sophisters: which reason from the accidentall pro­perties to the essential, of which matter [Page] wee will speake in his place.

238. Question.

Hast thou any other argument that thou canst alleadge?

Yea that I haue, and that of great waight. For the proper, perpetual and necessary effect being taken away, the antecedent also of the cause is taken a­way. I say therfore out of Saint Iohns verse. 51. Who so euer is a partaker of Christ, hee is a partaker of euerlastyng lyfe. But it is playne, that many doe re­ceyue the Elements of the Lords Sup­per to iudgement. Therefore none of these are partakers of Christ him selfe. But if properly and in very deede, the bread were the body of Christ, and that wyne the blood of Christe, eyther by transubstantiation, or by reall consub­stantiation, who so euer should receyue the Element, shoulde receyue also pro­perly and in very deede the thing it self. Therefore &c.

Thou art not ignorant what is an­sweared [Page] vnto the proposition of this argument: to wit, that that saying of Iohn and such other like, is to be vn­derstoode of those that come vnto it rightly and worthily.

I knowe it, and I trust I shall easily confute this, as also that same three­folde or rather fourefold eating.

What therefore doest thou con­clude of all these?

Surely that those propositions, this is my body which is giuen for you, and this is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes, are necessarily to be interpreted figuratiue­ly, to wit, by a sacramentall metonimy, and yet neyther for al that, is any thing withdrawen from the trueth of the Sa­crament, or from the true participation of Christ himselfe.

239. Question.

I would gladly also that that were declared vnto me, at what time thou thinkest the supper of the Lord ought to be celebrated. For wee heare that the Christians are laughed to skorne of the Iewes, who suppe so earely, yea, and that against the manner of the most old and Apostolicall church of Christ it selfe.

Christ did celebrate these myste­ries at night for twoo causes: For hee woulde compare this newe Sacrament which he instituted with the figure an­swering vnto it. Now the passeouer was slaine betwixt twoo euenings. And furthemore it is playne that this was the manner of the ancient, y ^t they should sit downe once, that is too say, in the eueninges. For [...] and [...] which the Latines (I thinke) called Prandium, that is, a dinner, as if a man shoulde say, the leauings of the for­mer meales, because that that very same day nothing in a manner was sodden, but somewhat was taken of the remnantes of the former dayes [Page] meale in a maner they not sitting down neither was it of all, nor of full prouisi­on and iunquettes. It is no meruayle therfore, forasmuche as Christ differred these same mysteries, as it were the sea­ling vp of his Testament into his last banquet, that hee rather instituted this ryte in the Euening then in the Mor­ning. Nowe it ought not too seeme any wonder, that the olde Churche, whiles that those loue feastes by little and little were taken away, that they did end their banquetes with the celebration of this Supper: the which thing notwith­standing, that it was not euery where kept, it appeareth not onely by the last Apology of Iustine, but also by o­ther testimonies of the ancient fathers. But it cannot be geathered of any cir, cumstance of time out of the wordes of the institution, that Christ commaun­ded any thing concerning the circum­stance of time. Therefore custome hath very wel preuayled, that the Supper of the Lorde shoulde be celebrated rather in the morning meeting, & of those that are fasting, then of those that haue dy­ned, [Page] that they may come to the hearing of Gods word and to this same heauen­ly mystery which is to be executed with great attention and highe reuerence, with the redier and better prepared myndes.

240. Question.

But hath the Lord appoynted no­thing concerning the place?

He appoynted the place, to wit, of the publike congregation of the Churche, whenas he ordained it amongest his dis­ciples: neyther saide be, Doe this eue­ry one, but doe yee this. And Paule sayeth plainely, When ye come toge­ther, the w ^c thing also the very name [...] & al the old Liturgies or formes of administring the Sacramentes doe shew: & also the very scope of these my­steries, in whith our natural felowship & consotiation in Christ is ratified, doth require. Nowe to appoint some certayne place with a kinde of religion (as it was not lawfull in times past too cele­brate the Passeouer other where then in that place the Lorde had chosen) it were [Page] a Iewish superstition.

241. Question.

What therefore doest thou thinke of the supper of the Lord administred in priuate houses?

I passe nothing at all of priuate hou­ses, if the church, that is to say, the con­gregation doe meete in them, as it was necessary in those same auncient times vnder the tyranny of the Romaine Em­perours, and is yet also necessary in our times in too many places.

And yet notwithstanding there are, which haue once condempned these priuate meetinges in the night.

I doe confesse, that those same night meetinges are not rashely too bee tollerated, nor otherwise then by great necessitie: wherevppon also in tymes past occasion was taken of casting the Christians falsely in the teeth of nighte whoringes. Also in our times no [Page] lesse impudētly obiected to the French Churches. But if they think them ther­fore to be cōdemned, who whiles most cruell perfecution is hot, came togeather in our times by night, or yet come toge­ther, surely they must condēne all y ^e true Apostolical Churches. But it was an ea­sie matter for thē, whose congregations by the autority and fauour of their prin­ces, beyng neuer dryuen into these nar­rowe streightes of the French men and other nations driuen therto, that either must want al Ecclesiastical administra­tion of the worde and Sacramentes, or else must take whatsoeuer occasions of meeting together and comforting one another, it was an easie matter I say for them too finde fault with other: from whom it was agayne lawfull for them to appeale to the whole auncient and most pure Church, to the testimony of their conscience, to the fruites of the confession of Martyrs, and finally to the tribunall seate of Christe it selfe. And these forsooth accusers of the brethren, neuer shewed themselues suche, in that their warre scarce induring for a yeere [Page] as it is playne both these were and are who nowe haue borne the waight of most horrible persecution these 50. yeeres, neither yet by the grace of God do faint, vnder this burden.

242. Question.

Let vs returne agayne vntoo the matter. Doest thou thinke that the Supper of the Lorde ought to be ce­lebrated in any other place then in the common and publike congrega­tion?

This was a custome in the begin­ning of the old Church, that the Sacra­ment shoulde be sent by Deacons to the sicke that were absent from the publike meeting, that is to say, at that time that the mysteries were celebrated of the rest in that meeting, because it was meete that those whom one disease did let too be present in body, should be accompted as if they were present: neyther doe I doubt but that that thing brought great cōfort to those that were sick, the which custome I would very gladly were restored. But whether it be meete to be ce­lebrated [Page] to the sick at that time when the supper of the Lorde is not ministred in the Churche of this I greatly doubt.

Why so?

Firste, because the Supper of the Lorde is not a priuate action of anye houshold, but meere ecclesiasticall: and therefore that same domestical Lambe, was slaine in Israel, that yet notwith­standing it shoulde not bee done at any other time, then when all Israel did ce­lebrate this mystery. Notwithstanding I doe acknowledge that in this case it is somewhat diuers. For although it were very meete that these mysteries, throughout whole Christendome albeit in diuerse places, yet notwithstanding dayly also if it were possible, or at least vpon appoynted, and sette dayes were celebrated, which shoulde profite very much to the witnessing of that same mu­tuall felowshippe and consotiation in Christ: notwithstanding forasmuch as neyther of both cā be obteined for many [Page] iust and necessary causes it seemeth, I know not in what sort, to be contrary to the institution of the Supper of the Lorde, that all the rest of the Churche omitting it, some one house extraordi­narily should celebrate those mysteries. Moreouer vnlesse that were doone a­mongest all those that were sicke, howe shall the suspition of partiality in re­specting of persons be shunned? Nowe if the Supper of the Lorde be to be mi­nistred amongest all that are sicke, lette Pastours see by what meanes the pro­phanation thereof may be auoyded and howe they may satisfie and vndergoe so great labours. The custome therfore of certayn doe nothing at all mooue mee, although that it be very ancient, because the matter is too bee iudged, not by Examples, but by reasons. Fi­nally that is moste certayne, that by thys vse the wicked thinges were brought intoo the Churche: too witte, in the beginning the keeping of both signes, then the Wyne waxing sowre, the keeping onely of one of the signes, [Page] which errour is playnly agaynst the na­ture of the Sacramentes. Hence there­fore sprang another errour, as though by a certayne magicall pronunciation the thing signified were tyed too the signe. To be short, it came so farre, that salua­tion after a certaine sorte was tyed too those signes.

But doest thou think that for these abuses the sicke are to be depriued of this consolation?

I verily thinke, that speciall care is too bee had for cutting off those er­rours. Neither doe I thinke that the sicke are depriued eyther of the consola­tion of the word or sacramentes if they be taught, because perhaps the time of relebrating the Supper with the rest of theyr brethren shall not fall out whiles they are sicke or in the tyme of theyr death, therfore y ^t they are not depriued of the fruite of that Supper w ^c before they had celebrated. For neither is the effica­cie of the Sacramentes too be restray­ned to that time, wherein they are recei­ued, [Page] but is spread foorth to all the times of a mans whole life. But if a man think that he can shun al these incōueniences, and thinke that those mysteries may be ministred to a sicke man in the congre­gration, he requiring it, vppon these conditions I woulde not be against this custome.

243. Question.

But what thinkest thou of vnlea­uened bread?

Although I woulde not greatly con­tēd of that matter as of a high point, yet notwithstāding, I say that it is a double blotte in those Churches which rather vse vnleauened bread then bread that is leauened: for this both sauoureth of Iudaisme, and it is lesse agreeable vnto the proportion of dayly meate.

Yea, but Christ first blessed sweete bread.

Forsooth because hee instituted this Supper at that time, wherein it was not lawfull for the Iewes too vse any o­ther [Page] but sweet bread. Therefore so I returne the argument vpon their owne hande. If Christ vsed that bread, which at that time was vsuall, for the celebra­tion of this Supper, the like also is too be done of vs, that is to say, he comman­ded vs to take the common vse.

244. Question.

What thinkest thou of adoration?

There is no doubt but that wee must woorship God euery where, and speci­ally in the holy mysteries: neither doe I thinke that there is any Churche in which there is not vsed a certain solēne geuing of thankes, so also both an in­warde and outward worshipping, when these reuerent mysteries as it were ra­ther in the heauens then in the earth are celebrated. But in the very taking of bread, how dangerous worship is at the Table, as that that opened the first oc­casion too that bread worshippe, from whence at the length Sathan cast men headlong to consubstantiation, the thing it selfe declareth. Wise men therefore haue iudged an honest reuerence direc­ted [Page] towardes GOD to be sufficient.

245. Question.

But that same ostentatiō which the Grecians call [lifting vp the hoast] wouldest thou admit it?

What forsooth, the very mother of that abhominable bread worship? nay if there were now any vse of it, would a­ny wise man allowe it? For this same ryte sauoureth partely of the relikes of those same Iewish Sacrifices in which those same shakings & heauinges men­tioned in the law were vsed, which were called Teruma and Tenupha: Partly also it is a Greekishe toy, as are many other rather Stagelike then Religious things, as it is easy to mark out of their Liturgies. For why should I not speak as the matter is? For we owe vnto them that same mixing also of water, w ^c after­wardes fell out to be a new sacrament.

But these things are very auncient.

VVhat then? yet notwithstāding that same sentence of Cyprian is to be holdē [Page] what this or that man hath doone, but what Christ hath commaunded, that is to be done, when the matter concerneth his true worship.

246. Question.

But wouldest thou admit all vnto the Lordes Supper.

That were more and time, which in very deed no man would admit, all boa­sting themselues for housholde seruants into his howse: which euen the very I­dolaters haue not done, crying out in theyr seruices, away away, be yee farre of, O ye proophane people: which thing also the Lorde in times past so seuerely forbad, that hee tooke it impaciently that strange fire shoulde be occupied in his holy seruices: who also with so ma­ny outwarde lawes commanded that e­uen they which were vnawares defiled, should first be purged before he admit­ted them into his house, & specially be­fore he admitted them to the ceremonie of y ^e Passeouer: & shall that be thought now to bee done lawfully vnder this co­lour, y ^t euery one shalbe beleued to come worthily to the Lordes table, which ha­uing [Page] heard the Sermon shall rushe thi­ther? But I suppose that the Pastours ought necessarily to knowe the sheepe e­uen by the same order that reason it selfe hath appointed. First therfore for auoy­ding of prophanation, I think that with a good conscience straungers are not to be admitted, altogether vnknowen to the Pastour: Moreouer those whom age it selfe sheweth not to be fit to make exa­mination of them selues, indeede not as vnworthie, but to bee warned as yet not fit, least they heape vppon them selues damnation. But of those that are grow­en in yeeres none to be admitted, vnlesse hee haue first after a sort rendred a rea­son of his Fayth, as one not onely borne in the Church of God, but as such a one of whome the Pastour may probably coniecture, to be a Christian, who must render account of all his sheepe before the Lorde. Last of all, I would accompt those for strangers by the word of God, whose hypocrisie by the iust and lawfull iudgement of the Ecclesiasticall pres­bytery shalbe conuicted to be such, that for a tyme they shall be inhibited from [Page] the common professiō of Christianitie, vntil they be found, heartily to acknow­ledge their sinne, not that they shoulde perish, but that at the least being enfor­ced by shame, they might repent and a­mende, and so the whole Church might reioyce againe of the receiuing agayne of a sheepe that had gone astray. I say and am ready to prooue, that this hath bene the order alwayes kept, euen vntill these tymes euer since the Church be­gan, of seuering the prophane from the holy, and reuealed hypocrites from the rest of professors of Christian religion.

247. Question.

But doest thou thinke this disci­plyne to be so necessary (whereby vn­till the testimony of repentance they are to bee separated from the rest of the sheepe, which might seeme other­wise to infect the rest, or vnlesse they bee noted with this kinde of marke, not to returne into the flocke from whence they haue erred,) that where that is not, the Church can not stand?

God forbid. For the foundation of the Church is farre otherwise, which often­times [Page] euen the very publik ministery of the word, being as it were ouerwhelmed (as in the memory of our Fathers in many ages of Popery) was euen as it were buryed. But surely it pitieth mee concerning those Churches in which e­uery one, the iudgement of the Church being silent, is left vnto his owne consci­ence, because Paule writing vnto the Corinthians, hauing a great deale lesse occasion witnesseth, that so neither the prophanation of the Lords Supper can be auoyded, nor escape vnpunished. But also I much more feare those churches, if they abuse that which is giuen to edi­fication, to destruction.

248. Question.

But what thinkest thou of them that for the impuritie of others refuse to come to the Lords Supper?

I think that they greatly offende: for neither by an others mans conscience, but by his own must euery one be tryed.

249. Question.

But is it free for euery one, either to come to the Lordes Supper, or to ab­staine from it?

No not so: for it is a commaundement [Page] of God, doe ye this.

But the Apostle forbiddeth to come vnworthily.

I graunt it. And therfore he biddeth vs to come worthily, but he comman­deth not that wee shunne it, although it were better to abstain, then to come vn­worthily.

250. Question.

But thou art not ignoraunt howe many things may and are wont to be sayde against those thinges which I haue heard of thee, to the confutati­on whereof, when it shall please thee we will come.

I knowe it, and haue already wayed all these thinges with my selfe, of which when opportunitie shal serue, we wil so handle the matter, that I trust thou wilt allowe my reasons. Nowe let it suffice that I haue spoken these thinges, that thou mightest vnderstande what my opinion is, concerning these matters.