exposition of that doubtfull word Answeare 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 define it A sacrament is a visible signe ordeyned of God for the church by the vse wherof Christ with his benefites with 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 Answeare I cal that a signe which Augustine so defineth Lib. 2. cap. 1. of christiā doctrine that he saith it is a thing which 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 that neither by their own nature neither by miracle but by the 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 the words thēselues pronosiced 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 which 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 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 Question 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 Answeare I say so 16. Question It seemeth notwithstanding that many of the olde fathers being notable men thought otherwise Answeare Of this we shall see more heereafter in his proper place I adde that Christ and his benefites are set foorth vnto 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 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 Answeare 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 which 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 why thou shouldest call the signe an action seeing neither the signes nor the things signified are actions Answeare 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 Question 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 which 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 Answeare 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 life with the nourishment of
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 Answeare That same bread that wine 172. Question Why doest thou adde that same bread and that wine Answeare That I may distinguish holy things from common things For so also Paule speaketh 1. Cor. 11. 16. 17. Question But in what thing consisteth this difference Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare Surely that bread is the 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 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 Answeare 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 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 Answeare 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 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 Answeare 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 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 Answeare 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 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 Answeare 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
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 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 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 Question But manie of these are rather types then Sacramentes Answeare 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 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 Question What doest thou therefore conclude of all these Answeare 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 Answeare Albeit that this specially belong vnto those confutations which I woulde 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 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 makest this to be Question One in the Subiect an other in the attribute the third in the very meanes of the attribution Answeare And what in the Subiect Question Because the Elements of the Supper of the Lorde are diuers from the Element of Baptisme Answere Be it so But what in the Attribute Question Because the bodie and blood of our Lord are the signified thinges of the Supper of the Lord. Answeare Thou art deceyued For in Baptisme also the blood of the Lorde is the thing signified But what in the attribution Question Because onely the Elements of the Lordes Supper are sayde in the words of the institution to be the very body and the very blood of our Lord. Answeare And what wylt thou conclude thereof Question 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 Answeare 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 Question Why so Answeare 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 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 shal be 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 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 the 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 Answeare 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 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 Question But who will agree vntoo these groundes Answeare 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 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 eyther by consubstantiō or by trāsubstātiatiō they maintein two cōtradictiōs at once to which 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 Question 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 is required Answeare 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 Answeare 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
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 Answeare 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 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 Answeare 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 Answeare First of all they agree in the efficient 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 the Fathers as to come but to vs which come already moreouer in both two there 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 Answere 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 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 Answeare 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 Question Surely I woulde thinke him twofolde weaker then the other Answeare Euen so perswade thy selfe of the estate 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. Answeare In good sooth those not yet done but 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 Question Why so Answeare 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 Question Wilt thou bee so good as to sette downe some similitude whereby I may more fully vnderstand what this matter meaneth Answeare 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 Question Surely I would thinke the Parents to
euerlasting life 21. Question And what are those same thinges signified Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare First that I may teach that indeede the signes are set forth vnto the outward senses and are receiued of them but the 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 Answeare Because our faith looketh partely too those thinges which Christ for our sake hath performed partly it beholdeth the promises which are not yet fulfilled in vs. 25. Question What callest thou Healing Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare The matter of the Sacramentes is two fold one earthly the other heauenly as Ieremias witnesseth which a man may also cal essētial parts For in very deede whatsoeueuer is in the Sacrament either it offereth it selfe to the outward sēses so is considered as a signe or els it is a spirituall 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 Answeare 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. Question 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 Answeare 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 thou canst not be washed vnlesse water be applyed and thou canst not be fedde but by taking meate and drinke Question But as I gesse thou vnderstandest Christ wholly and not eyther his Diuinitie alone or his soule alone or his body alone Answeare 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 Answeare Yea indeed that there is whereof we will speake afterwardes Question 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 Answeare No not so For thou seest in the Sacraments 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 Answeare 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 shal be 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 Answeare So I see some gather but howe vndeseruedly they so conclude I will then shewe when I shall come to that question How we may be partakers of those thinges signified Question Therfore let vs come to that other part to wit to the benefits of Christ which therefore are they Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 Answeare 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 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 Question So I haue read in some of theyr wrytinges who notwithstanding affirme this not generally of all Sacramentes but onely of the Lordes Supper Answeare 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 Answere 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 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 Answeare 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 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 Question 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 Answeare Vnlesse this be so the confusion of the naturall