sée not howe they will agrée their opinion with the articles of oure faythe by whiche wée doe confesse not only that Iesus Christe is gone vp into heauen but also that he is there sette at the ryght hande of the Father and that from thence hée shall come in Iudgemente by a visyble and corporall presence euen as he went vp visibly corporally according to the verie testimonie of the Angels and also of Sainte Peter who hath sayd that the Heauen muste néedes receyue hym vntill the tyme of the restoring of all thyngs wherof God hath spoken by the mouthe of all his Prophetes since the beginning The eightenth Dialogue is of the presence of Iesus Christe in heauen and in the supper and in his Church VVhether the ascention of Iesus Christe be a true ascention or no or else if he made himselfe only inuisible MATHEVV IT séemeth to me that all that whiche thou hast spoken of the ascētion of Iesus Christ is nothing against the opiniō of those against whom thou hast so long disputed for they denie not that Iesus Christe is gone vp into Heauē neyther that he shall come visiblie and bodily to iudge the liuing and the dead euen as thou hast said P. How do they then agrée their doctrine with this confession M. They alleadge two things vppon this pointe The firste is that the heauen and the right hand of God where Iesus Christe is do stretche ouer all The other is that the comming of Iesus Christ which is made by the sacrament the Supper is inuisible wherfore albeit that he bée there bodily in the propre substance of his bodie bloud yet is he not there visibly but inuisibly P. If they make no space betwéene the earth and the heauen and that they will stretche out the heauen euen to the earth in suche sort that Chryst hath not absented him from the earth as touchyng his bodie and that he didde retire himselfe when he went vp into heauen it may not then be sayde that he is ascended as the Scripture witnesseth but that he hathe alwayes remayned vppon earthe without departing from thence agaynst that whiche he himselfe did prophecie to his disciples It muste also be sayde that hée should then haue made hym selfe inuisible to them and that he were stil yet on earth not visible but inuisible Hovve that the presence corporall of Iesus Christ in the Supper may haue no place excepte he haue an infinite bodie or manye M. I Know not what to say to thée herein For if it were so then shoulde there be no true ascētion of Iesus Christ into heauen P. Albeit that it were so yet must it néedes be that he haue a body infinite to be in so many places at ones or else that he haue an infinite number of bodies to be in so many places at once as they wold haue him M. I vnderstand well that if Iesus Chryste had suche a bodie that his humane nature wer infinite as is his diuine it could be no more an humane nature nether could there be any differēce betwene the one the other Of the inuisible comming of the body of Iesus Christe P. AS cōcerning that which thou hast sayde of the inuisible comming of Iesus Chryste where is it in the holie Scriptures that they fynde suche a comming in the which Iesus Chryst cōmeth from heauen inuisibly in the proper substance of his bodie M. I can not tell for as thou haste alredy decelard in the articles of faith we speake but of two corporall commings of Iesus Chryst Of the spirituall comming of Iesus Christ P. I Wil grant them that there is an inuisible cōming of Iesus Christ by the whiche hée commeth dayely inuisibly to all But that is not in the proper and naturall substaunce of hys natural bodie but by his diuyne vertue whereby notwithstandyng hée maketh vs in deede partakers of his bodie and of his bloud and doth nourish vs as he doth testify the same vnto vs in his holy Supper doth the same by the vertue of his holy spirite the whiche ioyneth vs vnto him without being néedefull that Iesus Christe descend or ascend in his owne body to make vs partakers M. But howe may this be done forsomuche as the body of Iesus Chryste is in heauen and that wée be on the earth and that ther is so great distāce betwene the one and the other P. Seing that this coniunction is not naturall nor carnall but supernaturall and spiritual it is not at all harde for the holy Ghosts in such sort to ioyn the earth and the heauen together and to drawe vp our hearts into heauen euen to Iesus Christe M. I know well that there is nothyng harde nor impossible to God. P. In lyke manner is it not harde for Iesus Chryste to make the vertue and efficacie of his bodie the sacrifice of the same which he hath offered for vs to come euen to vs without being néedefull that he descende bodily from heauen to come to vs. M. I graunte to thée all that Hovve that the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the supper is contrary to the diuine vertue that is in him to communicate his gifts and graces to his Church P. IT must necessarily be that it be so for if he coulde haue no communion with vs and communicate himselfe to vs without comming downe from heauē bodily and without that he were with vs corporally presente his vertue shuld not be so great as it is nor should it be so wel set foorth nor in so great effect M. Is that the cause why he saide to his disciples it is expedient that I go for if I go not the comforter which is the holy Ghost will not come P. It is certaine that by these words he would giue his disciples to vnderstand two things M. Which be they P. The first is that his corporal presence did holde them still fixed in the earth and did hinder them by the meane of their infirmitie rudenes to cōprehend vnderstand that his kingdome was spiritual not carnall as they thought it to bée M. Which is yet the other pointe P. It is that he was not come vppon earth there to raigne by a corporall presence but to retire his body into heauen that he would raigne by his holy spirit by his spirituall diuine vertue among his according to the promise which he made them whē he said when you shall be gathered together two or thrée in my name I am in the middest of you And againe I am with you euen to the consummation of the worlde Of the spirituall and diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Church and of the vertue of the same M. THou vnderstandest then these passages of the spiritual diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Churche P. No man may otherwise take them And therfore Iesus Christ hath said to shewe that great power which he had Al power is giuē me
regeneration to the ende that he may make it pure cleane withoute spotte or wrinkle and a holy and glorious Churche M. I did neuer yet so well vnderstande these two pointes nor yet the diuersitie and difference that thou hast made betwene the benefites of Iesus Christe and the Baptisme and the Supper whiche are Sacramentes as now I do vnderstande all these things In vvhat sorte the faithfull in baptisme do put on Iesus Christ and are vvashed vvith his bloud P. WHen I tell thée that the baptisme declareth vnto vs howe that Iesus Christe is set foorthe vnto vs in baptisme for a robe of innocencie Iustice holynes and that we cloth our selfe with him by meane of the same I do not thinke thée to be of so grosse an vnderstanding to thinke that the faithfull do put on Iesus Christ naturally and corporally as a man putteth on a garment or a cloke M. I should be very grosse if I so vnderstoode it P. How doest thou then vnderstand it M. That euen as a garmente or a cloke do serue to couer the body euen so do the innocencie iustice and holynesse of Iesus Christe serue vs to couer our sinnes at the iudgemente of God to the ende that there appere no one spotte of them in his sighte P. And touching the bloude of Iesus Christe doest thou thinke that oure soules and consciences be washed and made cleane in Baptisme as one would with water wash a body in a bath or ryuer or else shéetes in a bucke Mathevv Thou makest here with me goodly discourses I thinke there is none so beastly whiche doth not well knowe that the bloud of Iesus Christe is called the washing of soules and of consciences not as though they must be washed and dipped in the bloud of Iesus Christe as one woulde wash and dippe a body that he woulde washe and make cleane or some other suche like thing but that the holy Ghost speaketh so to giue vs to vnderstande that whiche thou hast sayde to witte what the water of baptisme signifieth concerning the washing and purification of our soules and consciences in the bloud of Iesus Christ VVhat greater reason there is to communicate corporally of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper than in Baptisme P. THow doest aunswere me verye well but if thou find it strange that a man shuld say that they which are baptised haue put on Iesus Christ bodily as a garmente and are washed with hys bloud as with a materiall bath why shouldest thou not finde it as straunge or more straunge that a man should say that the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe are naturally and bodily eaten and drunken in the Supper as are the bread the wine which are the signes M. Thou makest me to consider somewhat more déepely of this matter than heretofore I did P. It is a matter well to be thoughte on For if that in Baptisme we haue no carnall communication with the body and bloud of Iesus Christ but only a spiritual I sée not what greter reason there is to haue rather in the Supper a carnal communication with him than in Baptisme considering that the supper dependeth of baptisme and that it is as a more ample confirmation of the possession of the benefites of Iesus Christe into the whiche wée beginne to enter by Baptisme and doe continue by the Supper M. I finde thy reasons very good P. Thou shalte finde them yet better if thou do consider how muche that grosse and carnall opinion doth disagrée as wel with the nature of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryste as wyth the faith that we oughte to haue in his ascention into heauen and of his seate at the right hand of God and of his spirituall and diuine presence and vertue by the whiche he is euer present in his church and doth guide and gouerne it eternally Hovve the corporall and carnall presence of the bodie and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper greeth not with the true nature of them M. EXpounde this same vnto me somewhat more at large P. For the first to what purpose is it to thinke that the bodie of Iesus Chryst is chewed and eaten and sent into the stomacke and frō thence downe into the bellie as is the bread whiche signifieth it in the Supper and that his bloud is also drunken as is the wyne which is the signe For bée it that thou vnderstand that the breade and the wyne be conuerted into the substance of the bodie and bloud or else that the bodie be eaten with the bread and the bloud drunken with the wine yet is there still greate absurditie cleane contrary to the nature of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste M. What contrarietie fyndest thou therin P. Séeing that Iesus Christ hath a very true naturall bodie in euery respecte lyke vnto oures as touchyng the corporall substaunce sinne excepte it is certaine and true that hée is not bodily and naturally not only in the heauen and in the earthe at one tyme but also neyther in infinite places For he hathe not a bodie whiche filleth the heauen and the earth as dothe his diuinitie but hathe a bodie whyche can not be a true and verie bodie if hée be not in some certayne place agreeable to his nature to his glorie and celestiall maiestie Hovve the glorifying of the bodie of Iesus Chryst doth not chaunge at all the substantiall nature propre substaunce of the same M. THou speakest of the bodie of Iesus Chryste as though he were in euery respecte like vnto oures and that he were not glorified at all as ours shall be also after the Resurrection of our bodies P. Albéeit that the bodie of Iesus be glorifyed by his Resurrection and Ascention into heauen yet followeth it not for all that that he hath lost the proprieties of his humane nature and that his corporall substance is chaunged in suche sorte that it is conuerted into diuine nature or that he is in suche sort transfourmed that he is infinite to be in euerye place or that he is so multiplied that for one bodie he hath many or an infinite number as necessarily it must be if the errour wherof wée nowe speake shoulde haue place Of the contrarietie that is betvvene the corporall presence of Iesus Chryst in the Supper and his ascention into heauen M. BVt they which maynteyn thye opinion say that these things maye not be considered naturally but supernaturally and that they do surpasse the capacitie of all mans vnderstanding P. I graunte them all that But why is it then that they forge vs a corporall and naturall presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the stéede of a supernaturall and spiritual presence M. They say that the same corporall and naturall presence doth not at all hinder the supernaturall and spirituall Pet. Albeit that they saye it it doth not therfore followe that it is so And on the other syde I
sorte as wée eate the breade and drinke the wine which represent them vnto vs P. If there were none other reason but that which may be gathered of that which I haue euē now spoken it mought suffice vs to discharge our heads of all such imaginations M. I doe not well vnderstand yet what thou meanest herein P. Seing that Iesus Christe hath ordeyned one seuerall signe to signifie his body and an other seuerall signe to signifie his bloud and that it hath pleased him so to discerne them the one from the other the better to represent to vs how his bloud was separated from his body for vs in such sorte as his life and soule was separated likewise it should also followe that his body must be eatē a parte as we there eate the breade and there drink the bloud a parte as we there drinke the wine M. If it were so we shoulde not haue in the Supper the liuing body of Christ but dead and other thā he is raigning in heauen where his bloud is not separated frō his body P. Thou sayest truth But thou hast yet to note that if the body and bloud of Iesus Christ were giuen vs to nourish and mainteyne vs in this corporall life as is bread and wine we shoulde then also eate the body and drinke the bloude of Christe corporally as we doe eate and drinke the corporall breade and wine But forsomuche as they are giuen vs for spirituall nouriture we must eate and drinke them spiritually M. What doest thou call to eate and drinke spiritually Peter To speake properly to eate and drinke is vnderstoode of the body and of the bodily meate and drinke but when we speake of spirituall thinges we take those wordes for a figure by the whiche we declare the spirituall thinges by the bodily thinges bycause of the similitude and agremente that they haue togither M. Why is that done P. To the ende that by the similitude and comparison of corporall thinges we moughte the better vnderstande the spirituall things Of the true spirituall eating and drinking M. DEclare this to me yet somewhat more plainely Peter Thou mayest well vnderstande that the soule and the Spirite do neyther eate nor drinke corporally and materially as dothe the bodye Mathevve I doe well vnderstande at the leaste that they haue neither mouth nor téeth nor stomackes nor bellies corporall whereby they may do the same P. And therefore it must néeds be that if the soule and the spirite do eate and drinke they eate and drinke in an other sorte than doth the body the whiche is proper and agreable to their nature M. There is reason in that whiche thou sayest P. And on the other side thou mayest well knowe also that the flesh of Iesus Christ is neyther eaten nor chawed neyther is swalowed downe into the stomacke and bellie neyther is it digested as is the corporall and materiall meate M. For what cause is it then that Iesus Christ hath vsed that manner of spéeche saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life P. It is to giue vs the better to vnderstande the communion and coniunction whiche we haue with him and how that his flesh and his bloud do the very same towarde the soule and also toward the body touching the spirituall life being receiued with a true and liuing faith as do the bread and wine towards the body touching the bodily life whē they are bodily eaten dronken The sixtenth Dialogue is of the transubstātiation cōsubstantiation and of the true presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper Of the error of transubstantiation and hovv the Supper cannot be a Sacramente if the bread and the vvine do not there remayne in their proper substance MATHEVV HOw is it that men do eate the flesh of Iesus Christ and do drinke his bloud as thou hast euen nowe saide It is to bée vnderstoode that the breade and the wine be transubstantiate and conuerted into them or else that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine P. For the firste there is no reason eyther to thinke or saye that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Iesus Christe M. For what cause P. Bycause that if the bread the wine did not remayne still in the supper bread and wine in their proper substance they shoulde not be the signes of the body of the bloud of Iesus Christe but if they were conuerted into the same they shoulde be the selfe same thing the which they oughte to signifie and represente vnto vs. M. What inconueniente should there be in that P. There shoulde be this inconuenient in it that the supper should be a Sacramente withoute signe and so shoulde it haue no Sacramentall signe without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments Of things vvithout the vvhich the sacraments cannot be sacramēts M. HOwe vnderstandest thou that P. Thou must note that a Sacramente cannot be a Sacramente excepte it haue at the leaste thrée things whiche are of the proper substance of all Sacramens M. Whiche are these thrée things P. The firste is the worde of God which is the foundation of all the Sacraments M. And the seconde P. The visible and materiall signes such as God hath ordeyned by that very word M. And the third P. The thinges signified aswell by that word as by the signes Of things vvhich are to be considered in the vvord of God in all Sacraments and in the signification of the same M. DEclare vnto me that whiche thou sayest by some similitude P. Séeing that we be vppon the matter of the Supper thou hast firste the worde of Iesus Christ in the which thou hast to note two pointes M. Whiche be they P. The first is the commandement which Iesus Christe there giueth to take and to eate the bread to drinke the wine which are giuen in the same M. Which is the secōd P. The promise whereby he declareth what it is that this bread and wine do signifie and for what cause he hath ordeyned and commaunded to receiue them and what frute we must looke for of them Math. Wherevpon takest thou thys promise Pe. Vppon that whiche is saide of the breade This same is my bodye whiche is broken for you and in like sorte vppon that whiche is spoken of the wyne Thys cuppe is my bloude or the newe Testamente in my bloude whiche is shedde for you doe this in remembraunce of mée Math. Muste wée vnderstande the lyke of all the other Sacramentes to witte that they haue commandemēt and promisse from God Peter There is no doubte thereof Ma. What is there more yet to cōsider cōcernyng the worde of GOD P. There is nothing more to be consydered concerning that same exteriour worde whyche is pronounced by the mouth of the mynisters Math. What resteth there yet more Peter That which is signified by the woorde the whiche doth also declare the signification
both in heauē and in earth S. Paule in like fort hath written that he is ascended aboue all the heauens to the ende he mought fill al things that he mought fulfill all in the same M. Doest thou vnderstand that he doth accomplishe and fill all things not by his corporall presence but by his spirituall diuine presēce and vertue P. We may not otherwise vnderstand it if we do beleue that Iesus christ hath a very natural body that he be in déede gone vp into the heauens For as we haue alredy said as ther is no reason to giue him many bodies to be in manye places at a time euē so is it ouer strange to giue hym a bodye which may fill the heauen and the earth Hovve that the corporall presence of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christ is contrary to the true communion of them in the Supper M. I Doe now remember that thou hast alredy said that the body the bloud of Iesus Christ could not be separated frō his spirit frō whence I do conclude that the body and bloud of christ Iesus cānot be receiued but to the saluation of them which doe receiue it P. None may doubt thereof M. It followeth then further that infidells cannot receiue them forsomuch as they cannot receiue them except they receiue their saluation the whyche they cannot obtaine without faith wherof they are void P. This which thou sayest dothe yet confirme more and more all that whiche we haue handled heretofore concerning the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper M. It is also the cause why I did againe set foorth thys matter For if the body and the bloude of Iesus Christ be corporally in the supper in suche sorte that whosoeuer receiueth bodily the bread and the wine therein receiueth also the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ corporally there shall follow thereof many things which séeme to me very contrary as well to the office of Iesus christ as to the nature of this Sacrament of the Supper P. Thou sayest very truthe and I am very glad to here of thée that which thou thinkest M. For the firste we shall be constrayned to confesse that a man maye in the Supper receiue the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe without faith and without his spirite for the vnfaithfull whiche shall receiue the bread and the wine shall no lesse receiue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe than the faithfull P. Beholde there a very straunge consequencie M. Moreouer if a man may receyue them without faithe they whiche shall receiue them in such sorte shal receiue thē either to their saluation or condemnation if they receiue thē to their saluation it must néedes followe that a man maye obtaine saluation without faith if they do receiue thē to their condemnation it must then followe that the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe do bring in this Sacramente against their nature deathe in stéede of life whiche is also against the nature of the Sacramente for it was not ordeyned to bring death to man but life VVhether a man maye conclude of the vvords of Sainct Paule that a man may receyue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ in the supper to condemnation P. THou concludest very well but they which houlde the opinion againste the whiche we dispute at this presente make no difference to affirme that the infidels receiue in the supper the body the blud of Iesus Christ that they receyue thē to their condēpnation For they build themselues vpō that which s Paule hath saide That who so eateth in the supper the bread drincketh the wine of the lorde vnworthily doth eate and drinke his condempnation M. I know well that those mē affirme that which thou saist But I cannot well agrée their opinion with the matters the which we haue alredy handled And as touching that which they alledge of S. Paule he sayth not who so shall eate the body and drincke the bloud vnworthily shal receiue his condempnation but he saith he that shall eate of this bread shall drinke of this cup. P. Thou hast also to note beside this that there is difference betwene receiuing the supper vnworthily to receiue it without faith and as touching the word of condempnation it may be also taken in diuers maners but wée will now no longer dwell vpon these two pointes It is sufficient for vs to knowe that the bodye and the bloud of Iesus Christ cannot bée truely receyued but by the faythfull Of the principall difference that maye be betvveene the transsubstanciation of the bread and of the vvine into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus christ and the bodily coniunction of them together M. I Do well vnderstand by all the reasons testimonies which thou hast brought out of the holy scriptures that we may seke no corporal nor carnall presēce of Iesus christ neither in the supper nor yet in all thys visible worlde but only a spirituall and diuine presence Wherfore whē I haue well considered the whole I finde no great difference betwene them that affirme that the bread and the wine be conuerted transubstanciated into the bodie blud of Iesus christ in the supper by the vertue of the sacramentall wordes those which affirme that albeit that the bread the wine remayne still in their owne substāce yet notwithstāding the body blud of Iesus christ be there also present with thē in their proper and natural substāce not only spiritually but also corporally substancially as are the bread the wine P. There is no great difference but in that that the one sort thinking to auoid the absurdities which follow the opinion of the others do fall into other absurdities which are nothing lesse of the which we will no more speake here bycause the matter woulde be to long whereof we haue alredy sufficiently spoken Of the vnion that is betvvene Iesus Christ and his members signified by the breade and the vvine in the Supper M. I Am very well contented for thys time with that which thou hast said and therefore shewe me now what properties the bread and the wine haue yet which are agreable to this Sacramente of the Supper beside that whiche thou hast already said P. I haue already sayd that those signs were agreable to this sacrament bycause they be apte to represent the spirituall nouriture by the bodily M. I doe very well remember thys pointe P. Thou hast also to note vppon the same that as one lofe and one vessell of wine are made of many graines gathered togither euen so doe they in the Supper represente vnto vs how that al the children of God which are dispersed are gathered broughte togither in one and vnited with Iesus Christ their head by his deathe as Saincte Iohn doth witnesse M. Thou wilte then saye that that vniō which is made of many graines in one lofe or in one wine
instructions Of the order that must be holden in the correction of euery mans faults accordyng to the nature and qualitie of the same M. SEing that the Discipline of the Churche is ordeyned for the correction of euerye man of what estate or degrée soeuer he be tell me what order there must be kept in the Ecclesiasticall iudgements towards all those towards whom they are quired P. First of all there must be diligente héede had to the nature and cōdition of the faults and vices whiche deserue iudgement and correction For some there be which require but simple admonition others there are whiche require reprehension and correction the one the more softe the others more sharpe according as men deserue and as tyme and place requireth and as the offences may be either greater or lesser M. And in what sort must men there procéede Muste these censures and corrections be done secretely or publiquely P. Here muste againe be considered the condition of the faultes For if they bée small and secrete a secrete censure and correction maye suffise M. But if they be of great importance and open P. It shall also be néedful that the censure and the correction be the more notable that they whiche haue offended openly be rebuked openly accordingly as S. Paule commaundeth M. And if one haue committed a great fault openly muste it be published for the first Pe. If it be open it is alreadie published Wherfore it is also néedful that the correction be in publique to the ende that the offence be also amended openly to serue to others for an example or otherwise the fault could not be well amended to satisfie the churche according as the discipline therof requireth Of excommunication and of the greatest rigour of the same M. ANd which is the greatest correction that the Churche may vse according to that discipline which is gyuen vnto hir by Iesus Christ P. It is excommunication M. What doth this excommunication emport P. The name therof declareth sufficiently vnto thée that it is an Ecclesiastique correctiō wherby it is declared that they shoulde be at the least shut from the communication of the Sacraments which are worthy of such censure M. Emporteth it nothing els P. yes in déede if it be taken in his extreme rigour M. What is it then that this extreme rigor importeth more yet P. It importeth acording to the expresse word of Iesus Christe that they which haue deserued it are holden and estéemed among Christiās as pagans and infidels in suche sorte that they are not only not receyued to the communion of the Sacraments of the Churche but that also the faithful and true Christians do withdrawe and separate themselues from all familiar conuersation with them to the ende they maye learne to be ashamed of their faultes and to acknowledge them the better to the ende they may attayne true repentance to reconcile and agrée themselues with the Churche of GOD whome they haue offended Of the force of laufull excommunication and of the povver of the keys giuen to the church M. THey are not then shut foorth from the communion of the Sacramentes of the Churche to the ende they shoulde alwayes remayne oute of the Churche Pe. If they continue obstinate in their sinnes not shewing apparaunte testimonie of repentaunce nor reconciling them to God and to hys Churche by the meanes therevnto ordeyned they doe not onely remayne shut foorth from the Communyon of the Sacramentes and from the companye of the faythfull but also from the kingdome of heauen and from eternall lyfe Math. Excommunication is not then a matter of small censequence but is much more to be feared than is a corporall punishement Peter It is certaine if it bée lawfullye doone for so muche as Iesus Chryste hathe giuen to hys Churche the keyes of the Kyngdome of Heauen with suche power as what so euer shée should loose or bynd in earth according to his word shuld be also bound or vnboūd in heauen M. But if the sinner acknowledge his faulte and yelde a true signe of repentaunce and desire to be reconciled and at one with the Churche it is granted vnto him Pe. Euen as the Churche hath power to bind the obstinate so hath she power to loose the penitent and euer according to the worde of God prouided that they accomplishe that whiche true repentaunce and the true discipline of the Churche doe require M. And when the Churche hath in such sort either boūd or loosed any one by the censure of excōmunication wilt thou conclude that God also holdeth him for bounde or loose P. Euen as the Sacraments are not playes for little Children nor playes fained of pleasure but are ordinances and testimonyes of God which represent by exterior ceremonies the spiritual things which in déede are communicated to the faithfull by them So is not excommunication a vayne ceremonie as a iuggling but a sure testimony of God which he hath ordained to signifie and declare which they be that he auoweth for members of hys Church or els that he holdeth for rotten members cut of and cast out of the same and consequently from the kingdome of heauen into the which none maye enter excepte he bée in déede first a member of the Churche and by the meane of the same If excommunication may extende further than to the disobedient M. SEeing then that excommunication belōgeth properly to the disobediēt may they then excōmunicate those which acknowledge their fault how great so euer it be and do giue testimonie euident inough of their repentance before they be excommunicated P. Thou must vnderstande that all disobedience deserueth excommunication and chéefly when a man hath bene admonished thrée times according to the order giuen by Iesus Christe concerning the same and doth not amēd his faults when they be offensiue and of euill example and that they be not onely little infirmities and ignoraunces the which men may not as easily correct as they would but are great offences M. I do well graunte thée that fo◠rebellion and contempt of admonitions and warnings is a very great fault and a very euill exāple in the Church of God which ought not there to be endured P. Thou hast also to note that albeit a sinner doe acknowledge his faulte at the first or second admonition and warning that shall be giuen him yet for all that it may be suche that for example the sinner may deserue to be at the least suspended from the communion of the sacraments for a time M. Why so if there be no manifest rebellion P. In part to proue the better the repentance of the sinner and in time the better to iudge whether there be fayning in it or no and apertly to giue example to others to the ende they may he the more afrayde to offende and that al togither they may learne the better to honour the Sacramentes and to take heede howe they contaminate and prophane them by their slaunderous vyces For as it
to the children or people of Israel as though he gaue his lawe but to them onely the whiche notwithstanding euen as it hath bene sayde heretofore doth no lesse belōg to vs than to that people Wherfore I would gladly vnderstād the meaning of it and the causes and reasons for the which God did so set it forth wherein it belongeth to vs. D. You doe know well that when Kinges Princes make any Lawes and doe cause any statutes or ordinaunces to be published in their name they doe accustome to put some preface to it cōtayning their name and the titles wherby they declare what their Maiestie Lordship power is Seing then that God whiche is the chiefe King Prince of al creatures would publishe his Lawe was it not then méete that he shoulde declare that he was the Lawmaker and what was his maiestie power And therefore did he say I am the lorde thy God whiche haue brought thee out of the lande of Egipte from the house of bondage Then is it requisite before all other things to knowe in this lawe who is the true God and by what meanes he may be knowen and discerned and seperated from false Goddes that this knowledge goe before all the cōmandements folowing For who shall call vpon God who shall feare him who shall loue him who shal put his truste in him if that first he do not know him and not in such sorte as the heathen doe who although they had a certayne opinion that there was a God vpon whome it behoued them to call to feare to loue and to honour yet for all that they did not know who he was nor where to finde him And for so much as wée can not sée him nor discerne him with eyes nor with any other corporal sense yet notwithstanding wée must beholde him embrase him and speake vnto him from the harte and frō the spirite Of the name Eternal vvhich is Jehoua in Hebrevve giuen to God. T. WHerefore dothe he first call him selfe the Eternal D. He dothe declare in the Hebrewe tongue in the which Moyses hath writtē these things by the woorde of Iehoua the which we do so translate what is his beyng his nature that he is the Creatour of al creatures the first the last without beginning and without end and hath his being of none other but of him self of him all things haue their beyng are come from him and doe returne into him It is he by whom we liue moue are Thē may he lawfully say I am the whiche none els may iustly say Wherefore seyng that he is our Creatour so by consequent our guide gouerner that we haue of him our soule body and goodes is it not méete that we doe acknowledge him to be our King Prince Lord render to him the homage of soule of body goodes of all things els that we haue receyued of him to yelde vnto him perfect obedience For this cause the holy Scripture putteth vs in minde oftētimes of these things giueth to God the title of maker of heauen and earth Wherfore it must néedes be graūted that none other be our God but onely he vnto whom this name and title belongeth which is that Eternall essence that can doe all things and is the beginning the conseruation the end of all things In vvhat sorte God is generally called the God of all men and chiefely the God of his chosen people T. WHerefore doth he also say beside that Thy God D. Bicause that this first benefite is cōmon to all men to al creatures according to their nature in as much as he is creatour of thē all he addeth vnto it also this title to make him more amiable and fauourable vnto vs to the end that by that meane he may make his doctrine more acceptable vnto vs that he may make vs the more willing to receyue it as the doctrine of our father who by the same procureth nothing but onely our cōmoditie and saluation And therefore he doth not onely say God but thy God which is a maner of speach that according to the phrase of the holy Scripture carieth with it fauour grace For first the name of God the which Moyses here doth vse doth signifie in Hebrewe force forces to declare vnto vs that he hath the power to aide and helpe vs and that he is not onely God for him selfe to witte that he will kéepe in him selfe the good things that in him are and not to bestow distribute them but that his very office is to bestow thē vpō men to shewe him self gratious fauourable towardes thē When he doth the contrary being prouoked thereunto by their frowardnesse wickednesse he doth by his prophets call that worke a straūge worke Wherefore when he calleth him selfe the God of any people he declareth therby that he is not only their God as he is generally the God of all creatures as Creatour of them but that he is their God not seuere rigorous as a iudge toward euill doers but curteous louing fauourable merciful as a good father to his childrē When then he sayeth Thy God he doth then put thē in minde of that which he spake before that he had chosen this people as his own enheritance as a precious Iewell among all the rest And therefore it is not without cause sayd by the Prophete he hath done so to none other nation And therefore he sayth by Esaie And now saith the Lord thus which hath created thée Iacob who hath fashioned thée Israell feare not for I haue bought thée I haue named thy name Thou art mine When thou shalt passe by water I will be with thee the floudes shall not swallow thée vp When thou shalt passe through the fire thou shalt not be burnt For I am the Lord thy God the holy one of Israell thy Sauiour c. T. There is a goodly declaration of that which thou hast now spoken and a very apparant testimonie D. It is euen so For thou séest that after that he calleth him self the God the maker fashioner of Israell the Eternall he addeth vnto it immediatly Thy Sauiour whiche haue redéemed thée For vvhat cause God doth make expresse mention in the preface of his Lavve of the deliuerance of Israell out of Egipte T. ANd why doeth he adde yet which haue brought thée out of the lande of Egipt D. To put thē in minde of the great benefite the which not long before they had receiued of him and whereby he had plainely declared vnto them that he was their God and that he esteemed them for his people in an other sorte than he did the Egiptians wherefore they had good occasion to thinke that so good a God and so louing a father would not set forth vnto thē any doctrine but such as should be greatly for
Wherin he hathe shewed the difference that is betwéene the creator and the creature and betwéene the nature and goodnesse of the one and the other For if God had created the Angels of such perfection as he is and of a goodnesse so vnchangeable of his nature that it coulde neuer haue ben changed into malice no more thā his own nature goodnesse mought what difference should there be betwéen God his angels The creature by this mean should be no more a creature if his nature wer such as is the nature of his creator but he should be very God which it can not be For ther is nothing that may be both maker creature vnles we will attribute the same to our lord Iesus Chryst who béeing very God very man in one only person is both maker creature togither Maker inasmuch as he is God eternal creature in that that he is mā which was cōceiued in the wombe of the virgin born in his time ordeined by god but this belōgeth vnto him by sundry respects by meane of the two diuers natures that ar ioyned togither in one person in him Wherfore although he be both the one the other in one very person yet is he not so in one nature but creator by reason of the one creature by mean of the other but the like is not of angels for as they haue but only one nature so may they be therein but very creatures greatly differēt from their creator as the fall of those that are fallen hath plainly declared For in falling frō the state wherin they wer they haue shewed in déed that they were not such of themselues nor Gods vnchaungeable of their owne nature that they could not so continue of their owne power Of the maruelous counsel of God vvhich was declared in the fal of the angels which are fallen from their first estate and in the preseruation of those which did continue firme and stedfast and how he hath declared the iustice of his iudgement towards the one sort the riches of his grace towards the others T. IF the men which ar so troubled with the doctrine of Predestination did well consider that which thou sayst they should not haue in my opinion occasion so to trouble themselues ▪ for these things wherof thou speakest did not come to passe withoute the knowledge counsell foresyghte and ordinaunce of god What wil mans reason say then therof wil it say that God hath done wrong to those that are falne bicause that he did not sustain confirm thē as he did the others but if that had bin done this wherof thou speakest had not ben so manifestly declared nor yet the nature and the maiestie and the excellencie that he hath ouer all creatures yea the most noble and moste excellent that are shoulde not haue ben so well set foorth D. It is very true On the other syde if they had all fallen indifferently the excellencie of the nature wherin god had created them nor yet the power wherby god did make them shold not haue ben so well knowne nor yet his grace toward them as it is knowne For in considering the difference that is betwéen the diuels the Angels of heauen we sée how excellent the nature of Angels is also that which they haue receiued of God in his creation we see on the other side in the deuils what it is that the creature can do of himself how excellent soeuer it be except it be preserued by god who hath created it on the contrary wée sée in the other angels the double grace that God hath bestowed vpon them The first in their creation which they had cōmon with the rest that are fallen before they did fal The second is in the conseruation of the nature whiche was first giuen vnto them in the confirmation in the same through his grace which the others wanted which is the very cause of the diuersitie that now is betwéen them which diuersitie doth not let notwithstāding but that the diuels do continue still angels in the same substaunce that they were created in but the difference is great in the qualitie that is to say in that that the one sort are not only angels but are good angels perseuering in the firste goodnesse that they receiued of God in the beginning in their creatiō frō which notwithstanding they mought as well haue fallen as the others if that God by his special grace had not sustained them had not otherwise disposed ordeined Wherfore it is not writtē without cause that all is restored by Iesus Chryste aswel in heauē as in earth that all consist by him in him The other on the other side are called not only angels but wicked angels deuils bicause that they did not perseuere in the first goodnes wherin they were created but turning from him frō whence the same proceeded they were put frō it in the stead of the same malice wickednes is come in place whiche is nothing else but lack priuation of goodnes which is changed into an euil qualitie which doth corrupt the creature that was created good maketh the natures contrary which wer before like For the same cause Iesus christ hath sayd that the diuel is a lier from the beginning that is to say euē frō the time that he was first a diuel and not fom the time that he was first made an angel that when he doth speak lies he speaketh that which is his own And therfore he addeth vnto it that he did not abyde still in the truth for he hath nothing of God which is truth but that whiche he now hath of euill is of himselfe Howe that the diuel may not impute the fault and fall of his damnation but to him selfe and how it is manifest by that fal that ther is no vnchangeable veritie nor constancie but in the nature of God. T. THen is there no faulte that procéedeth from God in the fall of the angels nor any thing therof which is apparant to men out of his eternall coūsel but that when the diuel wold turne from him of his own proper motion God who had not created him vnchaungeable did suffer him to change to folow his wil and permitted him to fall did not let him hold him nor pluck him back which thing not withstanding he could wel haue done if his good will and pleasure had ben suche and that hée had not otherwise determined in his eternall counsel for good iust causes for the which he is not bounde to giue vs an accompte the which he dothe know better than we doe But he hathe not thrust him forward nor constrayned him of force so to do albeeit that it is not done without his prouidence and eternal ordinaunce Wherfore he may not attribute the faulte of his euill acte to any other than to himselfe whiche thyng wée must séeke as thou haste
the glory of God to be preferred to all creatures And if that al the creatures should perish wherefore should we thinke it straunge if god were glorified in their perdition and that it did so please him T. No man ought to finde that straunge excepte he do more estéeme the creature than the Creator D. Therefore it is playne that this offence whiche many giue vnto themselues in the matter of reprobation of the reprobates procedeth not but from a maruellous greate pride and arrogancie of the flesh whiche estemeth itselfe more than it ought to do for if it had so small an estimation of it selfe as the worthynesse therof requireth and did estéeme God his glory so muche as it ought to do he should not onely not finde it straunge to knowe that god hath ordeyned to be glorified in the damnation of some no although it should be done with his owne person he shoulde glorifie God in his iust iudgement he would not murmure against him to wage the lawe with him and to play the lawyer and to pleade againste him to mainteyne the cause of the reprobates accusing hym as though he should do them wrong but rather he would desire himselfe to be damned as Saincte Paule desired for his bretherne the Israelites if it were possible that it moughte be done and that God mought be the more magnified and glorified therein From whēce then come these cōtrary thoughts but only of the horrible pride that is in our corrupted nature for what are we from whence came we what wrong may God do vnto vs wherin are we able to accuse him or attribute vnto him the faulte of our offences and of oure damnation and to set him in the place of the Deuill author of sinne considering that what determination so euer he haue made of vs we cānot complaine that we haue any other force violence constrainte to do euill but onely of oure owne wicked concupiscence vnlesse that happily we would complayne in that that he hath not made vs suche as coulde not sinne or else hauing sinned that he dothe not bestow vppon all like grace and that he dothe not saue all forsomuche as he moughte if that he woulde otherwise he shoulde not be God nor almightie but it hath pleased him that not without good and iust cause the whiche is continually such albeit that we cannot vnderstand it Therefore we must continually say with the Prophete that oure damnation is of our selues and our saluation of God only and say with S. Paule But o thou mā what arte thou that pleadest against god shall the thing that is fashioned say vnto him that fashioned it why hast thou shaped and made me thus The potter hathe he not power of the clay to make of one very lumpe one vessel to honoure and an other to dishonor And what if God wold to shewe his wrath and to make his power knowne suffer with great pacience the vessells of wrath prepared to perdition and to shewe the riches of his glory vppon the vessells of his mercie which he hath prepared to glorye and agayne O the déepenesse of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God his iudgementes are not to be searched out and his wayes are impossible to be found For who is he that hath knowne the Lordes intente or who hath bin his counsellor or who is he that gaue to him firste and he shal be recompenced Hovve that the vvill of man cannot by any meanes be constrayned no not by the deuill himselfe but only of his ovvne vvickednes T. FOr my parte I graunte to all that which thou hast sayde but yet canst thou not denye but that mā is yet oftentimes constrained to sinne by meane of the temptacion and soliciting of the deuill D. This constraint wherof thou speakest is cōstraint without cōstraint for it is not in the power of al the deuils nor of al the creatures that are to constraine the will of one mā Wherfore what temptatiō or solicitatiō so euer happē vnto him if he did not willingly consent therevnto he could not be induced to do any kinde of thyng against his will. But it fareth with hym as it doth with a harlot for if she be solicited by bawdes and whoremasters she will giue ouer hir selfe vnto them which thing an honest woman will not do but will resist all suche temptations and procurements wil ouercome them Therfore albeit that the harlot may impute some parte of the cause of the offēce that she hath committed to those that did entise hir and procure hir therevnto yet notwithstanding she may not say that she hath bin constrayned so to do nor may by that meane excuse hir selfe for if she had not agréed therevnto of hir owne will she had not at all playde the harlot but bycause that she was already naturally thervnto enclyned these procuremēts did serue hir as it were matches oyle wood throwne into the fire which would kindle nor slame neuer the sooner nor the more if it were not naturally enclyned and prompte therevnto In like sorte is man broughte to euill thorough his owne concupiscence the which being wakened and sturred vp by the diuell dothe the more declare it selfe and sheweth more plainely what his nature is wherfore thou séest here howe that man dothe continually sinne of his owne will and if he will saye that he hath bin constrayned to do any kind of worke the which he knoweth manifestly to be against the will of God it must be considered wherein he hath bin enforced and cōstrayned if he haue in any wise bin enforced by the force of others so that he could not be in any wise master of his members although he did resist it by all the meanes that he coulde and dyd declare by his wordes and actes that hys harte and will did in no wise consente thervnto he may be excused as an honest womā may that hath bin takē of force the which notwithstanding hath cried and resisted by all meanes possible against the whoremaster and hath bin as willing to lose hir life as hir chastitie but if thou doest an euill worke either to please men or else for feare that thou shouldest fall into their displeasure or indignation and receyue any dishonor or wordly hindrance thou maist in suche a case alledge none other constrainte but only that of thy wicked wil no more than Pilate might whē he condemned Iesus Christe enforced by the constrainte of the Iewes For if thou didst loue God with al thy harte and better than thy selfe and didst more estéeme his glory than thine owne and thy soule than thy body and the heauen more than thou doest the earth thou moughtest be frée from losing that whiche thou fearest to lose and shouldest not lose it at all but shouldest gaine it double For as Iesus Christ saith he that shall loose his life for my sake the same shall finde it and he that feareth