¶ The other part of Christian Questions and Answers, which is concerning the Sacraments, written by Theodore Beza Vezelian: to which is added a large Table of the same Questions. Translated out of Latin into English by john Field. Imprinted at London, by Thomas Woodcock. 1580. ¶ To the Christian Reader. Lest any man should be offended with the reading of these things which are here written, Beza testifieth that he will be ready to confer Christianly with any concerning the same, & give place too those who shall teach more certain things out of the word of God. ¶ To the Virtuous and Godly Lady, whom the Lord by his grace hath made gracious, & a Partaker of his gracious gifts, in a far better hope both of life, & calling, than this, the Lady Katherine Duchess of Suffolk: john Field wisheth increase of grace, constancy, and perseverance in his blessed truth, to the end, Amen. I Cannot conceal (Virtuous & Gracious Lady) the manifold benefits, that not only I, but many others of the faithful servants of God have received at your grace's hand. And forasmuch as I am persuaded, that the only glory of God & desire of advancing his truth, hath been the chief Provokers of this your goodness: I seeno cause but that I, both for myself, and for them, (some of them being now a sleep in the Lord, & resting from their labours) should have care to show that thankfulness, & good dutiful encouragement towards your Grace, that therein your goodness hath justly deserved. And this is the cause why at this time, I am bold too dedicate these poor labours of mine unto your Grace, as a poor pledge of my humble duty, and a testimony too the posterity of your hearty good will, and unfeigned love, to the glorious truth of God. And albeit in respect of me and my labour, it be most unworthy your gracious protection, yet in respect of that excellent instrument of GOD who wrote it, the matter contained in it, and the necessary use of it, for this time, it is not only worthy your defence, but deserveth great thanks of the whole Church of GOD: as giving light too many hard and doubtful points, concerning the Sacraments, and clearly satisfying the intricate Questions of curious demaunders, besides that it stoppeth the mouths of many carping adversaries both papists, and Vbiquitistes, who maintain, I wot not, what strange and monstrous opinions. And surely the knowledge of these things, how needful they are too all Christians, may hereby plainly appear, for that Satan the father of Lies, and adversary of God's everlasting truth, bestirred himself never more busily, for the overthrow and corrupting of it, then in this last age of the world, that partly by the bitter invasion of crafty and pestilent Heretics, & partly by the malice of ignorance in many that profess themselves Christians, he might even swallow up (if it were possible) the most beautiful spouse of the Son of God. But this is our comfort, that he hath her in keeping who will preserve her, who hath taken account of her members, and will not lose one, who will lead her into all truth, and so mightily defend her, that Hell gates shall not prevail against her. And too her under your name (good Madam) do I consecrate & avow this poor mite for the causes aforesaid, most humbly beseeching you too accept of it, with the same affection that I offer it. I do it not after the manner of the world, to get or crave any thing: I do it not to puff you up to pride and vainglory: but to provoke you to good things, that you may go cheerfully on, in that happy course of the Gospel, where into by his bountiful goodness you are entered. Your Grace now waxeth old, the days of your wearisome pilgrimage pass on apace, your continual sickness, pains, and infirmities are messengers of preparation too an other and better place. You have therefore to look about you, and to set all things in order towards that heavenly journey: Not only to give order for those things that concern the Christian duty of yours, towards that great God, that you may leave an holy posterity after you, or at least departed with a clear conscience, for having performed that duty: but also may yourself be furnished of that provision, that may make you stand with peace in his sight. For the Lord knoweth us. He seethe us & proveth our hearts: The wicked he will gather as a flock together too the slaughter, and will consecrate them to death. There is no escape too be made from him: for if they fly from his terror, they shall fall into the pit, and if they escape the pit, yet they shall fall into the snare. They that are far of, shallbe smitten with the plague and they that are at home, with the sword: yea, they that remain, the famine shall consume them. Where shall the wicked stand? if they scape, the Lion, a Bear shall fall upon them: and if both Lion and Bear touch them not, yet leaning in their own home upon the wall, (as the Prophet sayeth) An adder shall sting them. O that the wicked of the world, that have no fear of God, who so delight in iniquity, that they never satisfy themselves in sin, nor make no end in their wreathed pleasures, would but consider Gods judgements: for then undoubtedly the terror of his name, would be as a bridle to hold them back, from those monstrous transgressions, that now adays they commit with all greediness, without all shame & modesty. If covetousness be in the head of all, (as the Prophet saith) Is there any one that shall not perish with the sword? there shallbe no way to fly: yes they shall fly, but not one shall thereby be saved. If they go down to hell, his hand shall fetch them out: & if they ascend even to heaven, he shall throw them down. Admit they eat & drink, yet shall they not be satisfied. Their devices & counsels shallbe scattered. because GOD is with his chosen. If the Lord have determined, who can defeat his purpose? if his hand be stretched out, who can turn it away? Fear ye wicked. What though your concord be strong, and your purpose is too perk and peer into heaven? shall not the Lord scatter you, job. 6. 17. or ever you be warm in your place? Thanks be to God, who hath separated us from the wicked, that we should be free from their destruction. And let us keep ourselves from them, that they make us not sin against our God. If the Lord deliver them into Enod. 23. 33. our hands, let not our eyes spare them to the death, let us not pity them, nor make any league with them. Psal. 26. 4. I have not sit (saith good David) with the Counsel of vanity, and I will not enter with those that deal in wicked things. They that help them are like unto them, & they shall drink of the wine of his wrath, they shall drink of that which is mingled in the cup of his wrath, and they shallbe tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of his holy Angels, & in the sight of the Lamb. But the godly that hear this word & tremble at it, that believe in him, & obey his voice, that love him best and express their love also to other, these shall lack no good thing, they shall flourish as the Palm tree, and as the Ceders of Libanus shall they be multiplied. Their inheritance is with the most highest, and their righteousness is before him. He will give them an everlasting glory, and fill their souls with brightness, their bones will he deliver, and they shall be as a fruitful Garden, and as a fountain of waters that shall never be dry. They shall praise him, because they shall rejoice in him, & their seed shallbe the seed of peace. If they fall, it shallbe to their good: For the Lord upholdeth them, and they shall not be confounded for ever. Oh that we had faithful hearts, that we might truly rejoice in his promises, than should we not fear. But if our sins might make us sad, that of taste and feeling of heart we might truly be cast down in his sight, than should we return to him, that hath smitten us, & call upon him that he might heal us. If we believed in him, we should fear him, and our sins should be detestable unto us. To this end (my gracious Lady) hath God called us now a long time by his word, by signs from heaven, by monstrous and unnatural births, by terrible and fearful Earthquakes, that we might leave of this double dealing in his sight, that we might serve him unfeignedly, not in a ceremony, as the manner of the world is, that we might acknowledge his power, government and Sceptre, to be ruled by him, and to couch down under his hand. We have had wonderful fiery impressions, unnatural swelling and fading of waters, strange and unknown Stars, Comets and bloody clouds, with a late terrible Earthquake: such a one and so general, as neither in the remembrance of ourselves, nor of our forefathers, the like hath been read of: but alack what warning have we taken by these things? Either we attribute them to mere nature, and so lessen the warnings of God, or else we quickly forget them, as though they concerned not us. By the fine devices of detestable Epicures, and Godless persons, we make them fall upon other lands, as though the sins of our land were exempt from his judgements. As if nature were not made by God, or as though these strange things were not undoubted tokens of God's anger, already kindled against us: nay, though our own hearts bear us witness, that there never lived more unthankful wretches in the world than we, more irreligious, that for the most part, have turned religion into wantonness, and denied the power thereof, and these many gracious years of peace, which should have drawn us forward & advanced us in the school of God, we are far worse than we were in the beginning, and at our first entrance: duller, farther of from knowledge, and more ignorant, then little children. And if there be any thing in us, it is only in words. The murders that are committed in the land daily, are monstrous, the whoredoms, incest, and Sodomitry most beastly and outrageous, the pride so lucifer-like, the covetousness so excessive, the idleness so common, the envy so deadly, that every man can bear witness against his neighbour, and against himself in his own conscience, which is more than a thousand witnesses, that God in his justice must needs plague us. The godly groan in this great overflowing of sin, and the whole earth tottereth with the weight thereof, and yet where are the true fruits of our repentance? O we fast and pray: I am very glad of that good forwardness and readiness in our Christian Magistrates, but I would to GOD that we knew the true fast, that we came not before GOD like hypocrites, but as instructed and true humbled Christians, that these strange things might indeed fear us from our sins, and make us reformed from the heart: then should the Calves of our lips be Sacrifices of a sweet savour before our GOD, flowing from a true and lively Faith which should hold us up in a better hope, and should work in us, both to witness to others, & to seal to ourselves, that we were no counterfeits, but true Christians. And unless this effect be truly wrought in us, let us never flatter ourselves, though in some cold sort we use these outward exercises, and bow down our heads like bull rushes. No no, God must have a thorough change wrought in us, or else he will change our places: we must savour more of mortification, and holiness must shine in some measure in us. Let the world therefore, in that same godless contempt of God & his divine judgement, see what fell upon their predecessors the wicked, that lived in Sodom and Gomorrhe, and would not hear the Preacher of righteousness. If they have the like pride, hard heartedness, riot, idleness, and filthiness not to be named, where will they stand when the earth shall sink at God's judgements? Was God just in punishing the Sichemittes, in hanging up those twelve Princes, in slaying 24000. in the wilderness, in rooting out the Tribe of Benjamin, in destroying the sons of Hely, in banishing of David, & c? and will he not punish us, which are sunk deeper in such transgressions? But as it is a most certain sign of speedy and unrecoverable destruction, when men besides their sins live in all impurity and contempt of repentance: so it must needs confirm Gods great judgement to be at hand, that the world is so secure every where, and forgetful of those wonderful examples, that have been in time tofore. Before Babylon becked to destruction, GOD shook it with a fearful Earthquake under Sparett, the 17. King of the Assyrians. Before that great fire kindled in Grecia under Phaeton the King, and after a great Earthquake in Thessalia, in the time of Deucalion, as the histories report, God destroyed all the inhabitants thereof. Before those great judgements were performed towards Israel, that Amos the Prophet threatened, God Amos. 1. sent them a fearful Earthquake in the days of Vziah. Orosius in his second Book and thirteen Chapter, maketh mention of an Earthquake at Rome, when Proculus Geganus Macerinus & L. Menenius Lanatus were consuls, after which followed such a terrible famine, that many, desperate through hunger, cast themselves headlong into the River of Tiber. There followed also an outrageous pestilence after an Earthquake, when Marcus Cornelius Magn. & Lucius Papirius Crassus were Consuls. Before that same famous Peloponesiacke war, that fell out to the destruction of the Athenians, there was a terrible Earthquake with a continual fire seen in the air for the space of threescore & fifteen days, at last a great stone being tumbled out of the air upon the City. What shall I speak of that which swallowed up Helice and Bura, two notable Cities, as Eusebius, Eutropius & divers other Author's witness? josephus in his Book de judaico Bello, maketh mention of an Earthquake in judea, wherein there perished thirty thousand people. And Cornelius Tacitus in his second book saith, that twelve of the most notable Cities in all Asia were swallowed up in one night. In the 21. year after Christ Eusebius affirmeth that these thirteen Cities fell with an Earthquake, Ephesus, Magnesia, Sardis, Mosthene, Mechiero, Caesarea, Philodelphia, Himulus, Tenus, Cumae, Mirthina, Apollonia, and Diahircania. What should I reckon all: before that war of the Parthians, when Carbulus was Proconsul of Syria: before the destruction of cruel Nero, at the death of Titus H. Vespasians son, there were terrible Earthquakes, and three famous Cities of Cyprus were swallowed up: four of Asia also in the time of trajan: further two of Grecia, and three of Galatia. Oros. lib. 7. Cap. 12. Eutrop. Antiochia was so shaken, that scarcely trajan the Emperor escaped, read Dion. Nicomedian, and a great piece of the City of Nice in the time of Adrian, fell by an earthquake: so did Nicopôlis and Caesarea two famous Cities, after which followed wonderful calamities in the time of Gordian. tire & Sydon was by the same means overthrown, & so was many Cities of the East before the heresies of the Arrians took footing in the world, when good Athanasius and other faithful Bishops and Pastors were so cruelly persecuted. I will say nothing of Antiochia, of Neocaesarea, of Dyrachium, of Rome, and jerusalem itself: Neither will I speak of nearer times. For it were impossible to reckon all, I refer all godly men to the latter writers already published, concerning our late Earthquake. This is most certain that it is an undoubted token of god's displeasure toward us, to draw us to speedy repentance. It setteth forth unto us the groaning of all creatures & of the earth itself for that restoration, which the Son of God, jesus Christ our Saviour shall perform at his coming. And I beseech God that our hearts may be so shaken from the highest to the lowest, that we may call ourselves to a reckoning of our days paste, to shake of our former sins, that we may mourn before he strike, that he may have pity upon us, that he may mollify our stony affections, to make us tremble at his presence: to love his Gospel with a more fervent love, and to couch down with all obedience. This (good Lady) is the desire of my heart, both towards your grace, and towards all the Israel of God. In which state I assure myself, if we be found, though the foundation of the earth be shaken, and the sea make a noise, yet God will keep Zion, and the Apple of his eye shall not be touched. The Lord jesus keep us in this protection, that we and ours may live and die in the hope & comfort hereof: to which I most humbly commend your Grace, this first of May. 1580. Your Grace's most humble in the Lord, joh. Field. ¶ A Table of the questions expounded in this other part, according to the number of the figures noted in the margin. Of the Sacraments in general, and first of the name Sacrament. 1 THat which the Hebrews call Sud, the Chaldeans Razo, the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins have turned Sacrament, is not any where spoken of the ancient or of those same new ceremonies in the holy scriptures, to which notwithstanding there is not any thing added; 2 Why the Grecians called these rites, mysteries. 3 Why the Latins called the same Sacraments. The grounds of the definition of a Sacrament. 4 That the Sacraments are therefore added to the simple & plain word, that we also might be instructed by the eyes, and yet that hearing excelleth the fight, for the attaining of the knowledge of things. 5 After what manner the eyes serve to the knowledge of spiritual things. 6 God giveth all the opinions of Christian religion to every sort of men, though not with the sin and a like manner of teaching. 7 By the Sacraments although otherwise, yet nothing more is taught in the Church then in the plain and simple word. 8 The manner of teaching by the Sacraments, because of the word adjoined to it, is plainer than the other, neither is it without cause thereunto added. 9 Why and how far forth, Types, Ceremonies, Images and parables are obscurer and darker than the Sacracraments. 10 Some signs are natural, some monstrous, othersome voluntary. 11 The Sacraments are neither natural nor monstrous, but merely voluntary. 12 Of voluntary signs some are only for memory, others are simply significative, furthermore, by others both some thing past is signified, and some thing present is given, and then that now given, and also to be given is sealed. The definition of a Sacrament for the sign. 13 What a Sacrament is, being simply tataken for a sign. 14 What the working word is, and generally what is the use of words. 15 Sacraments without use, have not the effect of a Sacrament. 16 Christ himself, not only that which we obtain in him, is the thing signified, both by the simple word and also by the Sacraments. The definition of a Sacrament for the whole mystical action. 17 What a Sacrament is, being taken for the whole mystical & holy action. 18 In what sense the Sacraments may be said to be actions: and how they differ properly, from sacrifices. The peculiar exposition of the definition of Sacraments. 19 What are the signs in the Sacraments. 20 What analogy or argument is in the Sacraments? 21 What the things signified are. 22 Why there is said to be a spiritual sealing. 23 Why the word of Faith is to be expressed in the definition of a Sacrament. 24 The object in the Sacraments is both the things past and also to come. 25 What the sealing or assurance is. 26 What that same natural establishment is of our consociation or fellowship in Christ. 27 What the efficient cause is of Sacraments. 28 What the matter of the sacraments is. 29 The spiritual and heavenly matter in the Sacraments is threefold. 30 Christ is not called the heavenly matter of the Sacraments in respect of the Godhead, or for the soul. 31 In what sense the body and blood of Christ may be called the spiritual and heavenly matter. 32 These mysteries are not mysteries in imagination. 33 What the benefit of washing declareth. 34 What may be understood by the benefit of nourishment. 35 What it is to apply the benefits of Christ unto us in the Sacraments. 36 What the form of Sacraments is. 37 What alteration or change there is in Sacraments. 38 The outward and inward matter are also essential parts of the Sacraments. 39 What are the ends of Sacraments. 40 Of what things past the Sacraments are remembrances. Of the copulation or knitting together of the signs & of the things signified in the Sacraments. 41 Whether Christ be present in the place where the Sacrament is administered, 42 How whole Christ, and all that belongeth to Christ, differ. 43 The difference in respect of another thing or another, and for itself. 44 That whole Christ, but not the whole of Christ, is present in what place soever the Sacraments are administered. 45 The chief head of the controversy of the real presence of Christ's flesh. 46 Four opinions of the real presence of the flesh of Christ, why they stray from the truth. 47 A special manner of Christ's presence is required in the Sacrament. 48 The manner of this special presence is to be esteemed by the end. 49 The presence of Christ merely respective, set forth by examples. 50 The real presence and the sacramental presence diverse. 51 The sacramental presence dependeth upon the only will of God. 52 The real distance of the substances of the sign and things signified, doth not make frustrate the Sacraments. Of the partaking of the signs and things signified. 53 The bodily signs are received by the instruments of the body. 54 The benefits of Christ, seeing they are qualities, are only received of the mind, endued with faith. 55 Neither the person of the word, nor the soul of Christ, can otherwise be received of us then by an effectual virtue and operation, 56 The cleaving or sticking of the same body with ours is monstrous. 57 Notwithstanding it behoveth us to be united to Christ himself in deed, but spiritually. 58 Why this partaking and communicating of Christ himself is called spiritual. 59 Why the same is called mystical. 60 Why the same is called an uniting. 61 The communion of the substance of Christ himself is confirmed by similitudes. 62 What in effect our communion with Christ himself is, & whereto it tendeth. 63 Why there is rather mention made of the flesh then of the god head in our uniting together with. Christ. 64 Although Christ can be only applied to the mind endued with faith, yet the fruit of this application belongeth to the body. 65 Christ himself is truly communicated by faith not only in the simple word, but also in either of the sacraments. 66 What difference there is between the mere spiritual & sacramental partaking of Christ. 67 Christ himself with the same his gifts, was the matter of the old types and sacraments, 68 Augustine rightly said, that the Sacraments can have no astonishment as wonders. The comparing of the old & new sacraments 69 The old Sacraments agree in some things with the later, & in some things they disagree amongst themselves. 70 In what things they agree. 71 In what things they disagree. 72 The multitude of Sacraments doth not make the state of the old Father's better. 73 How the proportion of our Sacraments is more significant then of the Fathers. 74 The Fathers and we have eaten the same meat. 75 & 76 how, the flesh of Christ, not yet being indeed, was eaten of the fathers. Of the Sacramental forms of speaking. 77 The Scripture doth speak sometime properly, and sometime figuratively of the Sacraments. 78 What Sacramental forms are proper. 79 The first Sacramental figurative form is that, whereby the name of the Element is attributed to the thing signified. 80 The other form, whereby the name of the thing signified is attributed too the element. 81 The third kind, whereby the effect of the thing signified is attributed to the signs. 82 The fourth kind, whereby that which is proper to the signs, is attributed to the thing signified. 83 A metaphorical body not therefore too be imagined of us in the Sacraments. 84 Whether to believe and too eat the flesh of the Lord, be all one. 85 The Sacramental figurative forms, do not darken but make plain those things which are taught of the Sacraments. 86 What the use is, of the Sacramental figurative forms. Of the number of the Sacraments of Christians. 87 That there are only two Sacraments of the Christian Church. Of Baptism. 88 What the word Baptism importeth. 89 What baptism, is being taken for the first Sacrament of the christian church. Of the outward Baptism. 90 What the signs of baptism are, 91 Of the forged signs added too Baptism. Of the things signified in Baptism. 92 The thing that is signified by the Element of water. 93 The thing signified by the rites of baptism. 94 Why baptism was ordained in steed of old washings. 95 The sprinkling of the water of Baptism is signified by the ancient sprinkling of the blood. 96 What it is, to put on Christ 97 What the outward washing in baptism is. 98 How we die, are buried and rife again with Christ in baptism. 99 After what manner Christ may be said to be dead, buried, and raised from the dead, for our sins. 100 How mutual fellowship in Christ is established in Baptism. Of the pattern answering to the figure of Baptism. 101 What the Exemplar is, and what the respondent figures of baptism is. 102. Baptism not only a sign, but also a seal. 103 The causes & parts of Baptism. 104 What the formal word of Baptism is. 105 What it is to baptise into the name of the father, & of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. 106 The Apostles have changed nothing in the formal word of baptism. 107 What the effects of baptism are, and from whence they arise. 108 Sin is one thing, and sins another. 109 What the remission of sins is. 110 What regeneration is. 111 At what time the effect of baptism beginneth, 112 Baptism abolisheth not sins only passed. 113 How far forth original sin two taken away by baptism. Sundry Questions concerning Baptism. 114 How far forth Baptism is necessary to salvation. 115 Whether the Baptism of john and of Christ, was all one. 116 All are not to be baptized. 117 The faith of him that is to be baptised doth not necessarily go before baptism. 118 Those are to be baptized, which are comprehended within the Tables of the covenant. 119 Profession of faith is required of those that are grown to years of discretion, being to be baptized. 120 Children of Turks are not to be admitted to Baptism. 121 Neither of the jews. 122 & 123 The children which are borne either of the Parents being a Believer, are probably thought to belong unto the covenant of Christ. 124 We please God also being about to believe, not yet believing. 125 The promises being of the law in themselves are made of the Gospel, Christ. 126 What the faith of Parents availeth to their children. 127 The particular hidden judgements of God, are to be left to God, concerning the children of the godly. 128 What Baptism sealeth in children not yet believing in act. 129 Whence those Questions sprang, sometime accustomed to be made, in the baptism of infants. 130 Why the children of Papists may be baptized. 131. 132. The Church yet too be in the papacy, although papistry be not christianity. 133 A papist being of the years of discretion and not yet baptised, is not forthwith to be baptised. 134 Upon what condition the children of Papists are to be baptised, also of jews and Turks. 135 The children of all sorts of Heretics not to be baptised. 136 The office of baptizing is commanded too the Ministers of the word. 137 Why Paul denieth himself to be sent to baptise. 138 The Ecclesiastical callings of the Papists are unlawful by their own Canons. 139 The papists do vainly boast of the laying on of hands. 140 Baptism administered of mere private men, is to be accounted no Baptism. 141 The beginning of our salvation is not derived from Baptism. 142 Private men do much differ from those, which, not being lawfully called, do yet exercise the ministry. 143 The Baptism of the Papists although defiled, yet it is a baptism. 144 A fault in the essential form of Baptism doth make Baptism of none effect but a fault in the doctrine doth not so. 145 They are not without sin and blame, which offer their children to be baptised of sacrificing popish priests. 146 The children of the Saints being dead before they can obtain baptism, are not therefore deprived of the kingdom of God. 147 & 149 The putting off of baptism to be reproved. 148 Why circumcision was appointed the eight day at the furthest. 150 & 151 What is too be determined concerning the time and place of administering baptism. 152 Concerning the rites of baptism, and chief of the sprinkling and threefold dipping. 153 etc. How the form of baptism is to be observed. 157 The force of baptism is extended to the whole life of a man. 158 & 161 Why baptism is not iterated and often used, and yet the supper of the Lord, is. 159 Every one that sinneth, doth not shut himself from the kingdom of God 160 How far forth those which be excommunicate and shut out of the kingdom of God. Of the Supper of the Lord, and first of the sundry names of it. 862 The names of the Supper of the Lord used in the holy Scriptures. 163 The names of the Supper of the Lord used of the Fathers. 164 & 165 Why the Supper of the Lord is called a thanksgiving, and how far forth it is like unto a Sacrifice. 166 How greatly Satan hath abused it by the name of the Sacrament of the Altar. 167 Of the name of the Mass Of the Supper of the Lord itself. 168 etc. A definition of the Supper of the Lord, and so a certain short declaration of the parts thereof. 172 How that bread and that wine differ from common bread and wine. 173 & 874 What the Sacramental rites are in general, and of what things they are signs. 175 & 176 182 The breaking of bread is a Sacramental rite in the supper of the Lord, which ought to be kept. 177 & 178 The proportion and agreement of the signs with the things signified. 179 Why there is a double Element used in the Supper of the Lord. 180 The use of the cup is necessary in the Supper of the Lord. 181 Expedient that the Elements of the supper of the Lord be received rather by the Hand than by the mouth. 183 Horrible abuses put in place of the true rites. 184. What the blessing of the Supper of the Lord is. 185 Some certain parts of the blessing are free in the Church. 186 & 187. A certain form of that Sacramental blessing is prescribed by Christ. 188 The variety of certain voices in this form doth not cause it to be diverse. 189 In what sense the words of the institution may be called working words to such as have virtue in them. 190 The institution of the supper of the Lord is to be recited & expounded plainly & in a known tongue. 191 The proving of a man's self, in what things it consisteth, 192 True, and Perfect do differ. 193 A fault in the blessing how far forth it hurteth the supper of the Lord. 194 The overpassing of the breaking of bread doth not make void the action of the supper of the Lord. 195 & 196 The giving of the signs, the taking, eating and drinking overpassed, there is no supper of the Lord. 197 A fault in the person, or in the doctrine, or in the intention of the minister doth not hinder to make the action less lawful. 198 The unworthiness of the comer doth withdraw nothing from the truth of the Sacrament. 199 This conclusion is of no force, The whole Sacrament is offered too every one, therefore whosoever receiveth the signs, receiveth also Christ. 200 & 201 Every one heareth not the word and understandeth the mysteries: neither every one that understandeth them, apply them to himself. 202 Christ being received doth always save, but being refused judgeth, Of the expounding of the words This is my body, and this is my blood. 203 That the institution of the Sacrament consisteth not only in these words. 204 The distribution of these propositions into their parts. 205 Which is the subject in the former proposition or sentence. 206 Which is the Predicate or matter following. 207 Of what sort the Attribute is. 208 etc. There is no Trope neither in the Subject or in the Predicate, but in the kind of Attribution. 211 Bread sacramentally signifieth the body: and bread is the Sacrament of the body, declare one thing. 212 What the force of this sacramental Metonymy or putting of one name for another is. 213 A Metonymical proposition is more plain and evident than a simple proposition. 214 etc. That these propositions are figurative, is proved by arguments taken from the words themselves of the propositions, and of the reason of the proposition. 222 etc. Other arguments taken from the things going before and coming after also from the circumstances and conference of other places of the scripture. 231 An argument taken from the common and substantial form of all Sacraments. 232. etc. What the specifiall form of the Supper of the Lord is, and what the force thereof is. 235 An argument from the ascension and remaining of the body of Christ in heaven. 236. & 237 An argument from the local limitation, and essential property of the glorified body of Christ. 238 An argument from a necessary consequent. Sundry questions of the Supper of the Lord. 239 At what time the Supper is to be celebrated. 240 In what place. 241 Of the night meetings of the Christians. 242 Of the celebration of the Supper of the Lord in private houses besides the time of the Ecclesiastical meeting. 243 Common bread rather to be used then sweet bread. 244 & 245 Of that show, carrying about and worshipping used in the Eucharist. 249 Whether all comers are to be admitted to the Supper. 247 There may be a church where there is not the use of excommunicating from the supper of the Lord. 247 The Supper of the Lord is not to be abstained from of those which are pure, because of some that be impure. 249 Every one is willed to come worthily to the supper. 250 A preparation to a refutation here after. An end of the Table of the Questions ¶ To the Christian Reader. GENTLE Reader, concerning the words of art contained in this book, I must pray thee to take a little pains, by the circumstances to gather the meaning of them. If I should, as some other have done, make them speak English, yet if thou be ignorant of the arts, they would in mine opinion have been as dark to thy understanding, and much darker than they be now. And that may easily appear by those curious heads that have gone about too make Logic speak English, both to the disagracing of it, and also to the lessening of the force and signification of those words of Art, which all Arts have & must have proper and peculiar to themselves: but if thou will mark the matter diligently, that which goeth before and followeth, it shall be easy for thee, to understand what the Author meaneth. In mean time, I for my part have done the best I can, and will be glad to learn at the feet of any that shall teach me better. The Lord jesus increase our knowledge, and give us Faith in him for ever. Amen. Farewell, the 3. of May. 1580. I. F. Errata. 3. Question. For Ceremonies while, read which whilst. 15 For from them, read for them. Ibidem. For condemning that hold, read condemning those that hold. Ibidem. For words and omnipotency, read in the omnipotency. 55 For, who is not being, put out being. 59 For misery, read mystery. 94 For, often repentance, read usance. I55 For, the some, read same. Ibidem. For, in deed, read in steed. 169 For, mad, read mad. 201 For, such time of men, read such kind of men. 940 For, then attribute, read the attribute. 228 For, as often things unlike, read as often as etc. 288 For, when had, read when he had. ¶ The second part of Christian Questions, wherein is maintained the true opinion of the Sacraments: By Theodore Beza Vezelius. Question. I. WHat is a Sacrament? Answer. All the old Latin Divines almost have so turned, that same Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peradventure following the common translation of the Latin interpreter of the Bible, who in most places hath so expressed it. Question. Verily I do grant this thing, but I do marvel that the Prophets & Apostles, the very Writers of both the Testaments, do in no place call those which we call the old & new sacrament Sud or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For that same place of S. Paul to the Ephe. 5. 32. doth not pertain unto the action itself, but rather unto the effect thereof: to wit unto our uniting and growing up together with the head itself. Answer. It is even so as thou sayest: and yet for all that we must not think that the Greek fathers, when they called those holy ordinances, mysteries, or the Latin fathers when they called them Sacraments, did add any thing to the word of God. For we are not forbidden for instruction sake, to use some words be sides the word of God, so that we do it not unadvisedly, neither do change any whit in the doctrine of the prophets and Apostles itself. 2. Question. But wherefore were those same holy ordinances so called? Answer. Why the Grecians called those holy ordinances, mysteries, the thing itself showeth, to wit, comparing them with the simple preaching the word of God. Forindeed this preaching is plain & manifest: but these ordinances have a mystical & secret signification, because they be one thing, & eyt teach another. As heathen & profane nations had their mysteries and their mystical secrets, whereby after a wonderful manner Satan did bewich men: so the first ordained Christian churches in Grecia, that they might distinguish those holy ordinances (to which indeed they that were newly entered into religion were not to be admitted) from the simple Christian doctrine, did add those same words of mysteries & secrets, of a common use, to signify holy things, albeit in times past they were applied to signify most filthy ceremonies. 3. Question. But it seemeth that the consideration of that same latin word Sacrament should not be altogether the same. Answer. Neither in very deed is it. But it seemeth to me, that the latins borrowed this word, from that same Sacrament or oath which was wont too be used of Soldiers, wherein they solemnly and in certain prescript words were bound first to the common weal, then to the Emperor: & that plainly appeareth out of that learned and ancient writer Tertullian. For so he writeth in his book De Corona Militis: I think (sayeth he) we must search out, whether warfare be meet at all amongst Christians. Do we not believe that it is lawful too bring in an human Sacrament upon a Divine, and to answer to another Lord, after Christ, and to renounce father & mother, and every neighbour, whom the law commandeth us to honour and love next after God? By which words this also appeareth to be showed, that those same solemn Covenants which were wont too be required of those that were newly entered into religion; Dost thou believe? I believe: Dost thou renounce? I renounce; were taken after a sort from that same Custom of the warlike oath, and so applied too the Baptism whereby Christians swore obedience to Christ the Lord and King. And hereof is that same saying of the same Tertullian too the Martyrs: We are called to the warfare of the living GOD, even then when we answer to those words of the Sacrament. And also that of Hieronymus to Helidorus Remember the day of thy nonage, wherein being buried with Christ in Baptism, thou sworest too the words of the Sacrament. Yea and the very word of going a warfare is often used of Moses, concerning the whole worship of God. Now it ought to seem no wonder that the supper of the Lord began also to be called a Sacrament, which both was joined with the Baptism of those that were newly received into religion, as may appear by the 2. Apology of justine, & out of the old books concerning their rites & ceremonies, & also is the pledge of the vowed & sworn fellowship made in baptism. Question. But why was that oath called a Sacrament? Answer. Even because soldiers using holy rites vowed & consecrated themselves, with ungodly ceremonies whilst many Christian soldiers refused, they suffered martyrdom. 4. Question. These things concerning the name do satisfy me. But this doth not a little trouble me, that whereas my mind seemed in our first treatise to be quieted I know not how it falleth out that the very name sacrament being heard, it is again troubled, as though I know not what new matter were further to be known of me, & somuch the rather because there is no controversy, that at this day more embusieth christian Churches then that. Answer. This is the craft of Satan, which never mocked & deceived men more being addicted to those outward things, then with the outward worship of God. Now here in offence hath been committed two manner of ways. For some will seem so altogether of the spirit, that they despise all outward things as gross: others again believe nothing in a manner, unless they may feel & handle it with their hands. But they that will hear God first speaking by his prophets, & then by his Apostles shall go to neither side. But hereof we shall see more hereafter, that all things may be handled in their fit place. In few words therefore thus I answer thee. Although God teach us spiritual & everlasting things inwardly by his spirit, notwithstanding he seemeth to have set this law unto himself, to teach us the same by the senses, which are given us unless it be when he would work any thing extraordinarily in his children. Now there are five senses as it were the messengers of the mind, too wit, seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, & feeling. Of these God hath made special choice of two, too wit, seeing and hearing, of which I would gladly learn of thee, whether thou thinkest to excel the rest? Question. I think, Seeing, whose place above the rest seemeth to be unspeakable. Answer. Thou art greatly deceived. For albeit the sight seem by kind as it were too draw nearest the very nature of the mind itself, aswell for the swiftness of the eyes, as for their sharpness in beholding things: yet notwithstanding forasmuch as thou canst see nothing but that which is to be seen, and as a man would say, sightable, & in those things themselves which are seen, the most notable things cannot be seen, but in mind: and there are more things infinitely which cannot be beholden then which may be seen with the eyes: & to be short, seeing whatsoever is conceived in the mind may by the sound of words, (for sound is appointed to teach the mind by the ears) after some sort be expressed. It followeth that hearing by infinite odds is a more profitable instrument, then seeing, for the knowing of those things that are conceived in the mind. Question. I came that I might hear a divine, & not a natural Philosopher. Answer. When thou knowest to what end these words tend, thou shalt well understand, the I do not any whit at all decline from the scope and end of a Divine. And if it be a wicked thing for them that speak of Divine things, too touch any thing of natural Philosophy, than then thou must of necessity blot out in a manner all the word of God. Deniest thou therefore that there is greater use of the ears, than of the eyes for the knowledge of things: Question. No not so verily, seeing we learn every thing by hearing, and only behold things that are sightable or to be seen, neither are we cunning in them, unless we be by hearing taught of others, both what and what manner of things they are. But whereto tend these things? Answer. That thou shouldest know, that when God appointed to teach man, concerning that same secret will of his (in the knowledge whereof consisteth all our salvation) he chose out from amongst all the other senses, that of hearing, as most fit for that purpose, by which faith cometh, and therefore Rom. 10. righteousness and life, as the Apostle teacheth. And her of is that same authority and worthiness of the word of God so oftentimes witnessed in the holy Scriptures. Question. But in vain is it uttered to them that are deaf: And thou hast taught in thy former treatise, that we are altogether by nature unapt to hear the word of God. Answer. Now truly any man may very well hear that is endued with the sense of hearing, and also may understand the meaning of those things he hath heard neither is he devoid of reason. But in good earnest to agree and consent to these things so heard and understood, as right and true, no man can do it, but by the peculiar grace of the holy Ghost, which notwithstanding is given to many Reprobates for their farther judgement. To conclude, for a man to apply the promise of salvation in Christ particularly to himself which is the very property of faith, this is only given to the elect, which gift we call, the regenerating grace. This foundation being laid, in deed the word of God is not preached to them that are deaf. GOD giving us ears to hear, and as Saint Luke saith opening our hearts, that we might apply through faith unto ourselves, those things understood with our ears, which flesh and blood teacheth not. 5. Question. I see not yet how these things should belong unto the Sacraments. Answer Yea, but I have said before, that God to the end he might certify us of his good will in saving us, hath also chosen the sense of seeing, which was the cause of instituting the sacraments Question. But seeing these same everlasting and heavenly benefits, which are set forth unto us in the holy scriptures to be laid hold upon by faith in Christ are spiritual, they cannot be seen but in mind, yea and Christ himself cannot now be seen by any carnal eyes. Answer. Thou sayest very true. But GOD hath found out a way whereby he might in a manner set these things before our eyes, yea which were of themselves invisible and were for the greatest part (as I may say) not to be understood. Now that thou mayst see this matter more plainly, I will not stick to use a distinction used of that same Dionysius whosoever he were. He saith therefore, that partly the doctrine whereby god delivereth unto us those same holy things, is clear & applied to our knowledge, as when this or that is spoken unto us in usual & known words: partly darkly and mystically spoken, which also he calleth symbolical, that is, which is so after a certain sort taught, that it doth not by & by set forth those things naked & to be understood, but as it were leadeth us about by certain things interlaced and wrapped up. And that it is so, the holy Scriptures plainly show, as we will anon declare. 6. Question. Are therefore some principles of Christian doctrine plain and some darkelyer taught of God, in the Church? Answer. Surely in this point many have grievously offended, because they translated those things to the things themselves, that belonged to the form and manner of teaching: as though forsooth he taught, I cannot tell what part of heavenly wisdom to be necessary to salvation to the common sort: & another part to belong I cannot tell to what more perfect men. 7. Question. Dost thou say therefore, that no other thing is taught of God by the eyes or in the sacraments, then that which is perceived by the ears, or by the simple word? Answer. I say that these differ not in the things themselves that are taught, but in the manner of teaching. 8. Question. But to what purpose was it to add that symbolical and obscurer manner of teaching to that simple and plain kind, if no other thing be taught in that then in this? Answer. Yea rather that which thou thinkest to be the harder, is the plainer & more effectual. For teline I pray thee if that be not more certain unto thee, which thou perceivest by more senses, to wit both by hearing and seeing, than that which thou understandest by hearing only: Question. I grant, if those things whereof some man speaketh unto me be also set before mine eyes. But what if those things be not plainly seen, but be only shadowed forth by some signs? Answer. I answer that then that showing forth is more effectual, if the explication of that sign be added, then if it were only handled in words. For I pray thee if the Mayor or chief governor giving thee the possession of some houses in words, should there with all deliver into thy hand, the keys the pledge of that possession, whether thou wouldest not be the more assured of that thing, then if he had delivered those houses unto thee in vare words. Question Dost thou say therefore that this same other way of teaching our salvation, which thou callest symbolical, because it is done by certain signs set before our eyes hath certain words added wherein the very signification of those signs is set forth? Answer. I say indeed, that in this matter, whereof we now entreat, that is, in the sacraments of the church properly so called: For othermise also the types, ceremonies, & images in visions, & to conclude parables, to which, there was notalwaies added their explications, they are referred too this mystical divinity. For God taught the church more obscurely before Christ was given to it, then Christ himself afterwards did, & after Christ the Apostles: & also he instructed his disciples more familiarly, then the common people, when he spoke unto these as they deserved by parables, but opened unto them the mysteries Luke. 18. 10. of the kingdom of heaven. Now that thou mayst also the better understand this, will it please thee, that we divide these sacraments or signs into several kinds: 10. Question. It very well pleaseth me. How many kinds therefore I pray thee are there of them? Answer I say, following Augustine's steps in this matter, that some are natural, as smoke is a sign of fire: others are prodigious and joined with some miracle of which sort the Lord teacheth there shall be some in the Sun, Moon, & Stars: to conclude, Math. 24. Luke. 21. other some are either of the will and devise of men, as a bush hanged up is a sign that wine is to be sold: or of God as the rainbow in heaven, is an evident sign, that the world Gen. 9 15. shall never be destroyed with the flood. 11. Question. But to what kind dost thou refer the Sacraments? Answer. Surely forasmuch as they are neither natural nor miraculous signs, they are referred to the last sort, that is, to those that are voluntary, instituted by the will & appointment of God. Question. Yea, but they are natural things, especially those which are given in our Sacraments. Answer. I grant it: but in that they are sacraments, verily they have not this of nature. Question. They are therefore miraculous. For there is nothing more beyond nature, then that which is performed in the Sacraments, and the Apostle saith, that it is a great mystery that is ordained in the supper. Answer I treat not of miracles, which also are called signs & tokens because they sealed the power of God, & the truth of the prophetical & apostolical doctrine. Mark. 16: neither of those signs that were showed to this or that man for the confirming of their faith, or to the whole people (though not to a perpetual use) such as Manna was from heaven, or the passage through the red sea, but of the ordinary sacraments, ordained for the continual use of the whole church, whereof Augustine entreating in his 3 book of the Trinity chapter. x. and indeed expressly naming it the holy bread: These things (saith he) may have honour as religious things, but they cannot be wondered at as marvelous things. Now that which thou didst allege out of the Apostle, is not spoken of the signs but of the effects which follow the lawful use of the sacraments, as I will declare in his place. 12. Question. But these which thou callest voluntary signs, or ordained by God, be they of the same kind? Answer. No not so. For some are only for remembrances, that is, ordained and appointed for that use, that they might only be monuments of things past, as the xii. stones taken out of the bottom of jordan, which might be a witness of the river dried up. Moreover others, are put for signs, that is, such as either set forth a thing present, or a thing to come: as the rainbow in the firmament being not only a sign of the covenant begun with Noah, but also as it were a certain pledge that neither now or ever hereafter there shallbe any more drowning of the whole world. To conclude, others some are so ordained, that besides that they call somewhat passed, to our memory again, they witness also, that that thing for the signification whereof they are used, is truly and in deed given unto us, and they do as it were seal the promise thereof in us. So Christ breathing upon his Disciples, gave them the holy Ghost, inwardly in spiring, that which he signified by the outward breathing & therewithal giving it. Question. To what kind therefore dost thou referrethem whereof we entreat? Answer. To the last, whereby something past is signified, something present is given, & that thing now given, & to be given, is sealed. Question. Wilt thou therefore, that the sacraments whereof we shall entreat, be partly remembrances of things past, and partly seals of things present, and hereafter to come? Answer. Yea even so. Question. Therefore I would at the length that these things should be declared unto me by some fit definition. Answer. I will do as much as in me lieth: But so as I touch by the way those old ones, so far forth as these new may and ought also to be understood by comparing them with these. Question. This is the thing also I seek. Answer. But I cannot yet satisfy thee further, but with a preface. Question. Why so I pray thee seeing we have now by way of preface spoken so many things already, & also thou hast said that in the sacrament we are taught none other thing, than what we are taught by the outward word. Answer. So is it needful that we might aboyd the sophistical cavils, which Satan specially hath used in this behalf, thereof taking occasion, for that, men are taken with none more certain baits then bodily things, which when they are referred unto spiritual things whereto they serve, it falleth out contrariwise that we measure spiritual things by the nature of bodily things, which is the continual beginning & offspring of idolatry: Wherefore Augustine wittily and truly repeated this sentence, that it is a miserable bondage to take the signs for the things signified. 13. Question. Let us therefore once again use the exposition of that doubtful word. Answer. I see that a Sacrament in this matter is sometime called the signs only, & sometime the things themselves sacramentally signified, as we have said in the first signification: therefore thus I define it. A sacrament is a visible sign, ordained of God for the church, by the use whereof Christ with his benefits, with respect eternal life, is so by a certain fit proportion signified, that also truly and in very deed he is sealed in the hearts of the believers. 13. Question. I pray thee that thou wilt expound this definition unto me. Answer. I call that a sign which Augustine so defineth, Lib. 2. cap. 1. of christian doctrine, that he saith it is a thing, which besides the show that it offereth to the senses, maketh by itself some other thing to come into our remembrance as water considered in the use of Baptism, besides the show of water that it setteth before the eyes, representeth unto our minds, the blood, whereby our sins be washed away. I add, ordained by god that I may show, partly that neither by their own nature, neither by miracle, but by the institution & or dinance of god, those natural things are made sacraments: partly that I may teach that this change is not to be attributed to the words themselves pronosiced, but wholly to the ordination of God: the which ordinance is plainly expressed in the words themselves. 14. Question. Deniest thou therefore that working word, as they call it? Answer. If thou call that the working word, that witnesseth God to work somewhat, I admit that speech: If thou call it so, as though God had put some virtue in the words themselves, I reject this dream, as altogether magical or enchanting. 15. Question. What virtue therefore have these voices & words? Answer. They have this virtue to show unto us the will of God of any matter, whether he promise, threaten or command, or to be short, whether he do this or that. And I say that nothing else is too be attributed to the words pronounced of any, but that they be signs of those things which they are said to be. I add, for the Church, that I may distinguish those particular & momentary sacraments, which belong to the whole company of the faithful, & belong to a continual use from them, I add farther by whose use, that I may confute their gross error who dream I cannot tell of what divine quality infused into the signs, which they should have without the use itself, whereupon have followed infinite superstitions very ridiculous, that I speak no worse of them. Question. Thou sayest therefore (that I may use this example) that that consecrated bread of the Lords Supper, out of the action itself, is common bread, which notwithstanding in the action itself is the true Sacrament of the lords body. Answer. I say so. 16. Question It seemeth notwithstanding that many of the old fathers being notable men thought otherwise. Answer. Of this we shall see more hereafter in his proper place. I add that Christ and his benefits are set forth unto us by a fit proportion. First that I may show the thing signified by all those Sacraments whereof we entreat, as also by the simple word of God, not too be only those benefits which we obtain by Christ, whereof we have discoursed more fully in our former treatise: but specially to be that Christ himself, whom whosoever possesseth not, he cannot obtain any of these by him. I call that a fit proportion, which causeth the things signified to be offered by the sign to the understanding set before the eyes. For I pray thee wouldst thou paint an herb, that thou mightst represent a man to him that would behold a man? Very well therefore said Augustine: Unless (saith he) the Sacraments had some likeness of those things, they signify they should not be Sacraments. But of this we shall see more hereafter. Last of all I make mention of sealing following the steps of Rom. 4. 11. the Apostle, who not only calleth Circumcision a sign, but also a Seal, that we might know that the Lord in deed performeth that which he promiseth by the signs added thereto. Now indeed that thing, although it be offered unto all, yet notwithstanding the believers only are made partakers thereof, in mind or spiritually, & therefore I added, in the minds of the believers. 17. Question But how thou dost define a Sacrament in that other larger signification? Answer. So I define it, to be a certain holy action ordained of God for the church to continued to the end of the world, wherein God by a certain fit proportion of the signs & things signified, nourisheth in us the remembrance of things past: partly offereth unto our minds, even as it were setting them before our eyes, heavenly things, which are declared by the word of Institution added thereto, and must spiritually be sealed up by the means of faith: whereby, to be short, the separation of the children of God from the world, and their mutual fellowship is ratified and confirmed. 18. Question. I would have thee particularly to explain this definition unto me: & why thou shouldest call the sign an action, seeing neither the signs nor the things signified are actions. Answer. Yea but certain kinds of signs are actions, as by & by I will declare. But admit it be no action whatsoever here fall out, yet notwithstanding this general word is set in this definition, because both the signs themselves & the things signified, are thereto referred, that doing that God hath commanded both they might be signs unto us, and those things might be bestowed unto us. Now the Sacrifice is also an holy action commanded to the church from above, but only somuch differing from this, as there is difference betwixt to give, & to take. For in sacrifices, we offer somewhat; in the Sacraments, we receive somewhat. But hereof more hereafter. Question. I ask not why thou sayest these are holy, why from above, & to conclude, why commanded to the church: For I understand these things by the former. But I demand why thou addest that speech [even to the end of the world. Answer. Because I thought that we had purposed only too entreat of the Sacraments of the Christian church which without all controversy in the end of the world are at length too be abolished. 19 Question. Be it so. But what understandest thou by the word [signs? Answer. Two things, to wit, first that which they were wont to call the element, that is too say, that earthly and bodily substance, as the water in baptism, and bread and wine in the lords Supper: then the rites which are often used in the action itself, which also are Sacramental, neither only aught they to be changed or omitted. 20. Question. And what callest thou the proportion? Answer. That same agreement of the sign 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 everlasting life. 21. Question. And what are those same things signified? Answer. Christ himself, as I have said before, with all his benefits necessary to the salvation of the particular members of the Church. 22. Question. And why dost thou add that word [spiritually? Answer. That I may show the sealing of these things to depend upon the heavenly power and mystical virtue of the holy Ghost, and not upon the bodily understanding or outward senses, or upon that natural and sensitive understanding. 23. Question. Why dost thou add [by faith? Answer. First that I may teach, that indeed the signs are set forth unto the outward senses, and are received of them: but the things themselves are offered too the mind, and yet notwithstanding are not received of every mind (albeit they be offered to the mind of all that come to the Sacraments) but only are received of that mind that is endued with faith: because faith is the only instrument of receiving Christ. 24. Question. But why dost thou make mention of things past? Answer. Because our faith looketh partly too those things which Christ for our sake hath performed, & partly it beholdeth the promises, which are not yet fulfilled in us. 25. Question. What callest thou Healing? Answer. A more effectual application by the increase of faith. For the greater Faith is, the more excellent is the effect thereof, that Christ with his gifts may be as it were more and more engraven in us: whereto the Apostle having regard, he saith that Christ groweth up in us, & we again in him. 26. Question But what is that same natural establishment of our fellowship in Christ? Answer. So I call that same spiritual knot of love, whose bond is, in the right use of the Sacraments, strongly tied, as it were, of members knit unto the same head, & quickened by the same spirit, aswell by outward profession, as by the access of the inward affection. 27. Question. Say therefore what is the efficient cause of our Sacraments? Answer, Christ, God, & man according to his own good will & power, which he testifieth in prescript words by the mouth of the minister. 28. Question. And what is the matter? Answer. The matter of the Sacraments is two fold: one earthly, the other heavenly, as jeremias witnesseth, which a man may also call essential parts. For in very deed whatsoeveuer is in the Sacrament either it offereth itself to the outward senses, & so is considered as a sign: or else it is a spiritual or a heavenly thing, and so is signified by that outward. 29. Question What thou didst mean by the name of sign, thou hast said before, but what dost thou call the spiritual and heavenly thing? Answer. I call the heavenly thing chief Christ himself, than his benefits, and last of all, the application both of himself and of them unto us. Question. Go to then, let us speak of these three severally: wilt thou not, as I suppose, understand by the name of Christ, the alone power and operation of Christ flowing into us, and much more also that his only righteousness, which by imputation is made ours? Answer. Thou judgest aright, for Christ himself must become ours, and must be joined unto us, as in whom are all 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, unless water be applied, and thou canst not be fed, but by taking meat and drink. Question. But as I guess, thou understandest Christ wholly, and not either his Divinity alone, or his soul alone, or his body alone. Answer. I understand, whole Christ, and all that belongeth to Christ. For Christ being divided cannot be a Saviour. 30. Question. And is there any difference in these. Answer. Yea indeed that there is, whereof we will speak afterwards. Question. Go to let us leave this now. But if the matter be so, why dost thou understand Christ by the name of that spiritual and heavenly matter? Dost thou it in respect of his Divinity or Soul? Answer. No not so. For thou seest in the Sacraments mention to be made expressly, of the blood and of the body: and again of the blood, which as they are of a bodily nature, so also they are represented by bodily signs, to wit, by water, bread and wine. 31. Question. And why dost thou call that thing spiritual and heavenly? Answer. Not because they are of a spiritual & invisible substance: or because they are now endued with heavenly glory, as the Apostle saith that our bodies shallbe spiritual & heavenly, to wit, in glory, & not in substance: but because they are set forth in these mysteries, not to our bodily senses, & after a bodily manner. For neither can our bodily senses do otherwise, but (as the words teach) to be beholden in mind, and to be laid hold upon by the hand of faith. 32. Question. These are then but mysteries in imagination? Answer. So I see some gather: but how undeservedly they so conclude, I will then show, when I shall come to that question: How we may be partakers of those things signified? Question. Therefore let us come to that other part, to wit, to the benefits of Christ: which therefore are they? Answer. These are declared of us in the former treatise. But they both may and aught, keeping the Analogy or proportion of the signs and things signified be brought to two certain heads, too wit, to washing away and too nourishment, whereof that is established in the mystery of Baptism, and this in the mystery of the lords Supper. 33. Question. And what callest thou washing away? Answer. The forgiveness of sins, in place whereof succeedeth the obedience of Christ, and the abolishing that is begun of the corruption of nature, to which sanctification now begun in us, is opposed. 34. Question. And what callest thou nourishing? Answer. The growth, as it were, and increase of these. 35. Question. Now there remaineth the third, which thou didst call the applying of these benefits. Answer. So I call that same as it were a certain insinuation, which is by the power of the holy Ghost working in us: but is signified by Sacramental, not vain and unprofitable rites: to wit, by the bodily washing through the putting into the water and coming out again, and also as well by the bodily both eating of bread and drinking of wine. 36. Question. But what is the form of the sacraments? Answer. Even that same outward action duly and lawfully observed, and also that inward action of the holy Ghost. 37. Question, But doth this form change the substance of the signs? Answer. No not so. For they should cease too be signs, if they were changed into any other substance: because the Analogy or proportion, wherein consisteth the whole consideration of the Sacraments, should perish. There is therefore a Sacramental change, but not a substantial, that is, not consisting in the change of the thing itself, but in the use thereof changed, as when water is made the Sacrament of the blood of Christ, and bread the Sacrament of his body, and wine also of his blood. 38. Question. But thou a little before didst call these [parts. Answer. I did so, and not without cause. For these two which are causes by themselves, are also essential parts of the things, as the Logicians do very well teach. 39 Question Now what are the ends of these Sacraments? Answer. Some chief ends to wit, that Christ (as I have said) with all his gifts may more & more be sealed in us: othersome not so special, as that by this badge also we should be distinguished from others that make not profession of the Christian faith, & should be knit together more and more amongst ourselves in mutual love. 40. Question. And is there no more? Answer. Yes, this also is to be added. That the Sacraments are also remembrances of things past: as in the ceremonies of baptism, the pouring out of water doth set before our eyes as present, the shedding forth of Christ's blood: the putting into water & the coming out, his death, burial, & resurrection: also the breaking of bread in the Supper doth after a sort represent unto us, Christ crucified for us. 41. Question. These things being expounded, I would gladly learn of thee, what the knitting together of the signs & the things signified is. For thou art not ignorant, that this controversy is specially handled nowadays: 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 signs remain as some think, or be abolished, the accidents only remaining, as they teach, which consent with the Pope. Answer. This controversy is grown so hot and come so far, that for the deciding thereof, we need rather conscience than knowledge; but the Lord alone either by some wonderful judgement, or some notable example of his mercy will decide it: notwithstanding I will endeavour too make it plain when I shall come too speak of the lords Supper. Now that I may answer to that which is demanded, I say, that forasmuch as the things signified both in the simple word and in the Sacraments be partly things not subsisting or standing by themselves, as the forgiveness of sins, the gift of sanctification, the increase of faith, incorporation into Christ, and such like: that the question of the real presence of the things signified must necessarily be restrained to some real being. Now as I suppose, no other can be put but Christ himself. And when they with whom we agree not, concerning this matter, do not themselves (as I suppose think that Christ should be divided, as those that complain (notwithstanding undeservedly that the same is done of us: because that we deny the real presence of Christ's body: Dost thou think that the state of this question is so too be taken. Whether Christ GOD and man be present in those places themselves, where the Sacraments are ministered: Question. So I have read in some of their writings, who notwithstanding affirm this not generally of all Sacraments, but only of the lords Supper. Answer. I would not doubt too affirm the same both of the supper of the Lord, and of Baptism, and also after a certain manner of those Sacraments, which were before the coming of Christ into the Earth: neither would I think myself a Christian, if I should deny this. 42. Question I am glad that we agree amongst ourselves. Answer. God grant, that at length, we may agree. Therefore hear, I pray thee: It cannot be denied, but that Christ according too his Godhead is every where. This likewise is without all controversy, that forasmuch as man's nature is so taken of the Word, that GOD and Man are one real being, it must needs follow if thou consider Christ as some one, and singular thing, that whole Christ is also every where present: and yet not as in the Sacraments in which undoubtedly there must be appointed some peculiar and special manner of presence, as I may so speak, that they may be distinguished from other common things, in which also he is present. The other thing that I would have well weighed of thee, is this: that which is spoken of the whole is not yet spoken of the singular parts, being amongst themselves of a diverse kind. As for example. All the whole that we call man, we define to be partaker of reason, which yet thou wilt not say, of no essential part of man considered in itself. And yet there is somewhat in this definition, too wit, reason, which is attributed to that other part of man, even to the soul. Dost thou not see then that whole Christ, that is, Christ considered as a certain whole and absolute thing, is another thing then all belonging to Christ, that is Christ whom thou shalt way particularly by his parts. 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. Answer. Yea, I would have this farther to be marked of thee, that certain things do so fitly serve for the establishing of some singular thing, that that which by no means can agree by itself to some one, may yet be attributed unto it, as it cleaveth & is conjoined with another: the which thing is so far forth true, that it may also be said of those which yet but accidentally, only and for a time are joined together: as for example, when a King is crowned and is honoured in his robes, the crown and his robes are also reverenced, but yet in respect of another thing, to wit, of his kingly dignity, whereof they are ornaments, not in respect of themselves. For hereby it plainly appeareth, that the honour and reverence is not referred too those things, because when, the king hath put them off, no man can endure to reverence them, unless he be out of his wits, but they are reverenced for another, to wit for the kings sake of whom they are worn. Neither ever doth the crown or robes grow up into one real being with the king. Much more therefore shall some thing be said in respect of another which is joined personally with another, which yet can by no means in respect of itself be attributed unto it. So there is attributed to the word taking man's nature, that which is peculiar to man's nature as when it is said, that God suffered: as also to maas nature, Acts. 20. 28. that which is peculiar to the word taking upon it man's nature, as when in man's nature at what time he talked with Nichodemus in the earth, he said that john. 3. 13. he was in heaven. Question. These things thou hast handled before. But thou didst add that this was spoken, of certain distinct words, to wit of God and man. But of the abstract, to wit of the Godhead and manhood not so. Answer. Unless this be so, the confusion of the natural proprieties of either nature must needs follow, which are signified by those abstract words. Therefore we say rightly and godlily that God was crucified and dead, but it were ungodly & wicked to say that the Godhead were crucified or dead. Notwithstanding it seemeth to me that this also after a certain sort may be granted without any damage of the faith to be said of the abstract themselves, so that always we add expressly, that it is not spoken in respect of themselves, but for an other, that so the concrete may be understood by the abstract to be so determined. 44. Question. Say therefore at the length, whether Christ himself according to his humane nature, be present in very deed, and in his own substance, wheresoever christian Churches do administer the Sacraments. Answer. I say therefore that whole Christ, that is, if he be considered as a certain whole and one thing consisting of two natures to be present truly and indeed not only in the sacraments, but also in all things. Notwithstanding I deny that it followeth hereupon, that his humane nature considered in itself, is any where else thou above, so far is it of the he can be present at one time by his substance in many places, or every where. And yet again I grant that if this humane nature be considered, not in itself, that is not in respect of itself. but of another, that is if it be so considered as it is one real being with the word of whom it is taken, that it is as present every where as the word itself, from which it cannot be drawn not because the self-same nature is present but because it is joined with the word which every where is present. 45. Question. Concerning what matter therefore is the controversy betwixt you & them? Answer. Concerning this, that aswell they which defend transubstantiation, as they that defend consubstantiation, will have the humane nature itself, at one time to be both above and beneath, now we teach that it is only above: neither do we therefore divide the person. 46. Question. But do they place that presence simply in all things, or in the sacraments only? Answer. Such as will have Christ present in all places at once, will have him in all things, in so much as they will not have Christ as Christ in respect of his substance to be otherwise in, under, or with the bread then in all other things: and that by the power of the personal union, which they determine by the real effusion and pouring forth of all the virtues of the Godhead into that flesh taken: in which sense they interpret also the ascension of Christ into heaven, and his sitting at the right hand of god. But certain others do so teach this real presence of Christ's flesh to the people, that they themselves think that Christ's flesh hath obtained this of the Godhead, to which it is joined that it may be in very deed in many places at once as it will, the truth thereof remaining safe and sound, but that it appeareth the plain words of the institution of the Supper that Christ would have his flesh present there indeed: whereupon it should follow that this presence should especially be established in the Sacrament of the Supper, other concerning the matter itself think the same thing: but they fetch this presence from the words themselves of the Institution, adjoining his sitting at the right hand of the father, omitting that same power of the personal union. To conclude the popish transubstantiators condemning that hold ubiquity, place this real presence in the alone sacrament of the Altar (as they speak) sticking in a working power of certain words and omnipotency of God. Question. And what thinkest thou of these? Answer. I think that all these opinions offend in this, that either they will not or know not to distinguish betwixt a thing in respect of another, & in respect of itself, which ignorance vexed the Church, so many years by the Nestorians, Eutychians and Monathelites. And further I say, that there is a shame full error committed in this, that they draw those things to a Sacramental presence, which belong too an universal presence and common to all things. 47. Question Thinkest thou therefore that those things which thou hast spoken of the presence of Christ's flesh in respect of another, to belong unto all things? Answer. Yea altogether. For otherwise thou shouldest determine the Godhead of the word, to be somewhere absent, and therefore not to be the Godhead. Notwithstanding it is a speech less heard in the Concrete if thou shouldest say, that Christ, even man, rather, than the flesh of Christ, is every where in respect of another. For that same man is also God, notwithstanding not in himself, but in respect of the other nature, too wit, the word. But the humane nature of Christ is not the Godhead, neither in itself, nor in respect of the word: but if it can be said too be every where, therefore it is only said, because it is one real being with the word and so subsisteth in the same word every where present. 48. Question. What therefore is the Sacramental conjunction of the sign, & of Christ himself? Answer. That which agreeth to the nature of the Sacraments, and too their end. Now we have declared the nature of the Sacraments to be such, that by the signs offering themselves too our outward senses, our minds in a cértaine proportion might be carried first indeed to behold the things signified, and afterwards unto those things which are therefore set before us to be looked upon, that they may be apprehended and through faith by the power of the holy Ghost, be more and more applied unto our minds. 49. Question. To be short, than what manner of presence is this? Answer. Certainly not that which respecteth situation of place, but that which is altogether respective, or rather of relation and belonging too another. For a Sacrament is in that predicament, which the Logicians call relation. Question. I would gladly have this made more easy unto me. Answer. I will do it, if I can, but I would that now for a while the persons being changed, that myself should take the parts of ask & thou of answering. Be not words the notes of those things that we would have signified in every tongue to the minds of the hearers by certain sounds? Question. Yes verily. Answer. What if I should contend, that every thing whereof I should speak must be present in very deed? Question. Surely that should seem unto me very foolish, seeing we may speak also of things past and of things to come, yea of things which never were, are not yet, or perhaps never shallbe. Answer. Notwithstanding of whatsoever thing I shall speak, I shall represent the same by my words unto thy mind. Question. It is so. Answer. Things therefore are signified by those voices, whereby they are signified not by a natural situation, and too be short not by their own substance, but by a certain respect or phrase of speech & habit of words added, so far forth as they settle them as it were in the understanding of the hearers. 50. Question I pray thee declare this unto me more plainly. Answer. Know thou that the copulation of the Sacraments, and of the things signified by the Sacraments are altogether like. For as Augustine said very wittily: The Sacraments are as it were some visible word, as that which the words sound too the ears, the same they show to the eyes. Therefore they question most fond here of the real presence, seeing that real presence (or rather of the matter and substance itself) in a certain place, & the Sacramental presence are not indeed continually repugnant and contrary: but yet notwithstanding they so far forth differ betwixt themselves, that that also which in very deed yet is not, yet is sacramentally present: whereto Paul having regard, he sayeth that the Fathers did eat the same meat, 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. and drink the same drink, too wit, Christ. And it is so far off, that this Sacramental knitting should be in vain, that contrariwise as we shall say in his place, it is more effectual than any natural copulation. 51. Question. But who maketh this mutual or respective copulation? Answer. The will of God declared, in the word of institution. Question. Wilt thou therefore that we entreat of consecration? Answer. I would rather for certain special causes, refer all this to the treatise of the lords Supper. 52. Question. Do they not therefore make frustrate the signs, whosoever teach that the thing signified, is absent from his substance? Answer. Surely they do not make them void, unless we say that they are vain words whereby we do no less engrave in the minds of the hearers, things absent than things present. Question. Who then make them void? Answer. They that teach, that the Sacraments are only bare memorials of things pastor badges of Christian mutual fellow, ship, or that the things which are signified by them are not truly offered, to be laid hold upon with the instrument of Faith, as it were by the hand. 53. Question Now I would thou shouldest declare unto me, what manner of partaking that is, both of the sign, & of the thing signified. Answer. I suppose thou canst not doubt of the first part of this question. For seeing the signs are bodily things, they are also naturally received by the instruments of the body of all that come thereto. 54. Question. Let us therefore speak of that other part of this question, that is, of the partaking of the thing signified. Answer. We have showed that Christ himself with his gifts is the thing signified, of which gifts some of them are made ours by imputation, but the others are wrought in us and clean too us. I say therefore that these, seeing they are mere qualities as they are offered to the minds only, so they are laid hold of by the only instrument of the mind, yet endued with faith, which is the only hand of the mind to embrace the promises of God. This whole partaking therefore is every manner of way spiritual. For that, whereof we are partakers, is of a spiritual nature, and is wrought by a spiritual instrument, yea and the whole action of this instrument is spiritual. 55. Question. But thou canst not say the same of Christ, as who is not being a quality according to either nature or any such like thing. Answer. Yea, but first of all, concerning the very person of the word, I suppose that it were a very wicked thing, too think that we could be partakers of it, otherwise then by virtue and operation. For otherwise we also should become Gods by nature: and so that place. 2. Pet. 1. ver. 4. is to be expounded, and all such other like places, as all Interpreters of any name or credit agree. Question. I agree to it, and I detest that dotage of the Manichees renewed by servetus, thinking God to be so present in all things, that he is also a part of them. But what sayest thou of the human nature of Christ? Answer. Neither dost thou as I suppose, think the substance thereof in very deed too be joined with our Soul. For what is more foolish than this souldering and sealing together of minds? But thou wilt not say that the substance of the Soul can be laid hold upon by any Organ or Instrument of the body. 56. Question. But what? shall we think the same of the very body of Christ? Answer. I grant, that bodily things may be participated by bodily senses, but I utterly reject that real, touching and cleaving together of the body of Christ with our bodies, as a Monster, than which nothing can be feigned more false and less fit, for the end of the Sacraments, pretend they what they will, for the maintenance of this dotage. Question. Therefore say why thou callest that false? Answer. Because now it can by no means be made too agree with the truth of the limited flesh of Christ, and it is altogether contrary to the whole history of the Gospel, as I shall show in his place. Question. And why serveth it not for the end of the Sacraments? Answer. Because the whole Sacramental Action is wholly referred too everlasting life, and therefore it must needs be that this partaking must be wrought by the mind and by Faith, and not by the Instrument of the body: Wherefore also as the outward signs are set forth too the outward senses, so the thing signified is set forth to our understanding and faith. 57 Question. But if thou take away the partaking of the substance itself, then in stead of the body and soul of Christ, or in steed of Christ himself, thou only placest the virtue of him. Answer. Yea but I do not take away that same partaking of Christ himself. For even like as the body is nourished with meat in this life, and that must first be taken in very deed: so also I determine (which also I have said before) that we must partake of Christ himself, so, as we must be made one with him in very deed, that that same lively juice may be derived out of him into us. For he neither said, This is my merit: or this is the fruit of my passion: but this is my body: Neither said Paul, that we were only baptized into the death of Christ, but that we also did put on Christ: or that the bread which Rom. 6. 34. 2. Cor. 10. 16. we break was the partaking of his benefits, but the partaking of his body. Therefore that I may return to the matter, I do not take away the body itself, that I may place the virtue thereof instead of the thing signified: now that which is signified by the sacraments that very self same thing is given to the end we should be partakers thereof in very deed, neither do I deny, that we are partakers of Christ, indeed. But I affirm this partaking or laying hold of or application or communicating to be mere spiritual and mystical. 58. Question. Why dost thou call it spiritual? Answer. First that I may shut out, all touching of the body of Christ with our body, all local coherence and existing together, and to conclude that monstrous opinion of eating with the mouth as mere cyclopical (howsoever it be excused with other no less feigned devices of not beingseen & being without place. Next, because this partaking in respect of us is wrough by the only hand and mouth of the mind and of faith. For this is the meat, as Augustine hath very well said, not of the belly but of the mind. 59 Question But why dost thou call it mystical. Answer. That I may teach that this knitting together, whereby we are made flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones, to wit by a certain spiritual marriage doth depend of the only power of the almighty spirit altogether secret and incomprehensible to us, which also knitteth nearly together things most far asunder. Ephe. 5. 30. 32. Therein following the steps of the Apostle, who crieth out that this is a great misery. 60. Question. And why also callest thou that communicating [an uniting & knitting together? Answer. Because the whole Scripture witnesseth that we must be made one with Christ, that we must be incorporated into Christ, & beknit to him as members to the head, so that he may live in us, and we in him. Now this connexion we affirm to be not only of a certain consent, as when Luke writeth Acts. 24. 31 that the hearts and souls of the believers was one: but also natural, or as Cyril hath very well written, that so must be understood the communion of Christ himself. 61. Question. Canst thou shadow out unto me after some sort, by some fit similitude this mystery otherwise incomprehensible? Answer. Yes verily that I can, even out of the same similitude of the head and members so usual with the Apostle. I beseech thee therefore whence have these arms their natural sense and moving? Surely even from the head to which they are knit after a natural manner, as it were by ioyutes sinews and artiries which otherwise should become devoid of all motion and feeling. Now imagine with thyself that even as boxes of sweet smelling ointment do even pierce things very far of, and the secret Magnes is a stone, that hath the property to draw iron unto it. force of the Magnes prevaileth against iron, though it be removed far from it, so is there so much lively strength in this my head, that although it were at Constantinople, and one of mine arms in India, and another in Spain, yet notwithstanding, by the help of these same fit and convenient joints, it is able to give them life: imagine I say some such thing with thyself and thou shalt have the lively Image of this our incorporation into Christ. For Christ himself according too the flesh neither now placed any other where then above these heavens into which he hath ascended according to the flesh, by a physical and natural moving, neither shall come again from thence, before that same last day doth so truly and effectually knit, couple and ingreffe into him self all believers placed here in this earth by that same divine power of his working in the matter which is hindered by no distance of place the afterwards out of his flesh in which life itself dwelleth bodily, and which hath not received the spirit by measure, that same lively juice might flow into us believing in him. 62. Question. Therefore there is no need either of any local motion, or touching, or to be short of any placing of the humane nature of Christ in the earth, for this knitting of us the members, unto our head Christ: neither doth this same communicating of Christ himself, tend to this, that there should be a commixture and mingling of substances, but that out of Christ himself, spiritually, so joined unto us that same quickening power of his should flow into us. Answer. Fie, away I say with all those false and foolish trifles. 63. Question. But why dost thou rather make mention of the flesh then of the godhead in this conjunction or knitting together? Answer. I do not this, as though the God. head did nothing here, when as contrariwise in very deed, the very flesh of Christ simply and considered in itself as it is flesh, doth not quicken us, but because as the Fathers very wittily speak, it is the flesh of the word. But in this I follow Christ the Master, expressly repeating the names of his flesh and blood in this mystery of our conjunction with him, because we cannot be joined with him, but by reason of his humane nature, and in as much as he is our brother. 64. Question. But like as thou sayest, that this meat is received of us only by the mind endued with faith, shall we likewise think, that the fruit of this union doth only belong unto the mind? Answer. No not so. For Christ being laid hold upon of us by faith in this life, doth bestow upon us all good benefits aswell of the body as of the mind as many and as much as we have need of, and at the length will also give unto us wholly everlasting life. 65. Question. But dost thou restrain this our uniting with Christ, to the only mystery of the lords supper, as some do? Answer. Be it far from us. For both in the simple word, and also in either Sacrament, albeit in an unlike proportion neither equal effect (unless our unbelief do let it) whole Christ is offered unto us too be laid hold upon, spiritually by faith, so far is it off that we shut Christ out of the Lords Supper, as divers do slander us. 66. Question. Dost thou think then that there is no difference betwixt that daily partaking of Christ through faith, and that which is made in the lords supper? Answer Yea, I think that there is great difference, unless unbelief let it, betwixt that which I call mere spiritual, & that which is said to be sacramental and yet notwithstanding not concerning the thing itself, neither in respect of the instrument of faith, but in this, because there only by the word, but here also by visible signs our faith is admonished, and the thing signified is sealed. Moreover this partaking excelleth the word in this, that the simple word for the most part is universally set forth unto the people, but the Sacraments are given unto every singular person, as it were by the hand of GOD himself, which thing doth wonderfully profit unto that same particular and full persuasion that ought to be in every one. 67. Question 67. Question. But dost thou think that Christ in like sort was set forth unto our old fathers, before his coming into the flesh, and all his benefits aswell in the simple word, as in the types and Sacraments joined to the word, also to be apprehended and laid hold off by faith? Answer. I am altogether persuaded so, for the self same Christ, yea the same whole Christ, both in his audible word and also in his visible words, that is to say in the Sacraments, is set forth to the self same end. 68 Question. I had almost quite forgotten that which I would gladly have asked of thee, to wit, how it is that Saint Augustine writeth, as thou hast cited, that the Sacraments can work no such astonishment as miraculous things do, if that same mystery of the uniting of Christ and his Church together be so wonderful. Answer. I have answered unto that already, that it is one thing to ask of the Sacraments themselves, another thing of those things which God doth work by the use of them. Augustine therefore doth very well forbid, whether we respect the nature of the Sacraments or the Sacraments themselves, that they should be numbered amongst miracles, because it is not strange, neither also against the order of natural things, that some thing for the analogy and proportion, and also by the covenant of men should be used for the signifying of some thing altogether differing from the nature thereof. For I beseech thee, what miracle is it that the betrothing of marriage to come, should be signified by a Ring: and putting into possession of houses, should not only be signified by the delivering of a Key, but also confirmed? There is the like reason altogether to be had of the Sacraments, although not particularly yet generally, albeit those things which God worketh in us (if we rightly use the Sacramences) do exceed the understanding even of the very Angels themselves. 69. Question. But that which thou hast spoken of our Sacraments, dost thou also think of those same old Sacraments? Answer. I say both twain in those things which are as I may say of the substance of the Sacrament itself, do altogether agree, but they differ in certain circumstances. 70. Question. Show me therefore how they do agree Answer. First of all they agree in the efficient cause. For Christ our only lawgiver appointed both these and them: further they agree in the inward thing itself. For Christ was that same tree of life in Paradise, that same Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, that same paschal of the Fathers, taking away the sins of the world, that same spiritual Rock, that same meat and drink of the Fathers, which thing also is to be thought of those same types and figures, and to be short, of all the old Sacraments. For very rightly and truly sayeth Augustine in the six and twenty Treatise upon john, that the Sacraments of the Fathers in respect of the signs, were divers from ours, but concerning the signification they were alike. They agree also in the word concerning the substance, albeit the voices be not the same. For there is signified in the word of institution, that Christ and his gifts are offered unto us in either, to the Fathers as to come, but to us which come already: moreover in both two there is found the self same instrument of applying him, and the same Faith in diverse signs, as the same Augustine saith in his 45. treatise upon john. Also the self same end and effect is in both of them. For Circumcision was both the sign and the seal of righteousness by faith. Rom. 4. 11. And the Fathers were circumcised in Christ with the circumcision of the heart made without hands. Col. 2. 7. 71. Question But in what things differ they? Answer. first they differ in the signs (by which I understand the Sacramental rites themselves) which we have more spiritual & fewer & less laboursome, further in the plainness of the word, which in ours is much more clearer: whereupon also groweth another difference in the very measure of the efficacy and operation itself. For the more plain and manifest the word is, the more ought we to be moved, and therefore the more effectual aught our faith to be. Whereto also belong the words of the self-same Augustine, that our Sacrament are fewer, easier, more significant, and more full of Majesty: to which also that may be added, that these differ in this, because they were instituted only until the coming of Christ: but ours shall take no end but with the world. 72. Question If it be so as thou sayest, it appeareth unto me that the state of the Fathers was mightier in two great things than ours: First because they had more, then because they had more significant helps of faith, than we. Answer. But I pray thee, whethers weakness of the body wouldst thou judge to be greater, his that hath need of two stays to uphold his going, or his which leaning upon one staff, doth easily go any whither? Question. Surely I would think him twofold weaker than the other. Answer. Even so persuade thyself of the estate and condition of those fathers. For the multitude of Sacraments, showeth not that their condition was the better, but contrariwise that it was worse. For neither should our faith, if it were strong enough of itself, need the Sacraments. 73. Question. But certainly it seemeth that there was in those Sacraments a more plain Analogy or proportion of the signs with the things signified. For in very deed the flesh and blood of those slain sacrifices, did more plainly represent the flesh and blood of Christ crucified, than bread and wine: and Manna falling down from heaven did after a sort more lively set before our eyes the incarnation of the word, also the water flowing out of the opened rock, the blood of Christ flowing out of his wounded side, than the breaking of bread & the pouring out of wine into the cup. Answer. In good sooth those not yet done but to be done, aught to be represented too the fathers by a more gross proportion then unto us, because that it is far harder to believe things to come, than already done and witnessed by a sure and plain history. Therefore as thou hast said those signs did signify the thing to come more grossly & palpably. But in this thou art specially deceived that thou thinkest the more gross the Analogy or proportion, is that the more significant it is. Question. Why so? Answer. Because the things signified by the Sacraments are heavenly, which flesh and blood teach not, but that same only Master of truth the holy Ghost: whereupon all Believers are said by Esay and by Christ himself, Esay. 5. 14. john. 6. 4, 5. to be taught of God. Therefore the efficacy of the Analogy or proportion dependeth upon the word, whereby is set forth both what it is and whereto it tendeth. Question. Wilt thou be so good as to set down some similitude, whereby I may more fully understand what this matter meaneth? Answer. Verily I am very well content, that also the mouths of the Sophisters may be shut up. If thou being altogether ignorant of these mysteries, shouldest see some circumcised, what wouldst thou think of it? Question. Surely I would think the Parents to be very cruel towards their new born babe, so that I should utterly detest them, unless I should understand their meaning to be otherwise. Answer. But thou shouldst indeed understand it, if I should show unto thee that this were done by the commandment of God. But if so be also I should declare unto thee, by the institution of God, that by the foreskin were signified our natural filthinesses and their fruits, which that same son of GOD to be borne should take away, by the shedding forth of his blood, thou wouldst a great deal the rather content thyself. Notwithstanding thou wouldst desire being taught now the self same thing, that the same might be showed unto thee after a more fit manner, and with less danger of the infant. Now if that same simple washing should be instituted in the place of that bloody cutting of the foreskin, thou wouldst sure prefer this condition before the other. And the same reason is there of those slain Sacrifices, which were both laboursom and costly. And concerning those same miraculous wonders, to wit, of Manna falling from Heaven, and the water flowing forth of the rock, these are to be rehearsed, in the number of those same figures which were once showed, & not amongst the Sacraments which are perpetual, against which our Sacraments are not to be set, but the truth performed in Christ himself given unto us. Question. I understand that which thou sayest, to wit, that the more simple the proportion is, the more plain the word is, whereby the signification itself is expressed, the more excellent is our condition then our fathers. But notwithstanding it seemeth that that same Analogy of the old Sacraments is more plain. Answer. Neither dost thou in this point understand what thou sayest. For in very deed in circumcision thou seest nothing but the cutting of of the foreskin: that is to say, thou seest one only part of the benefit of Christ shadowed, And yet neither ought the old man only too be abolished, but also the new man too be borne in us: neither that only too be taken away which offended God, but also that righteousness to be given wherein he is delighted. Now the very water of baptism and the rites themselves, do they not declare either benefit much more plainer unto us? And so the difference also of our Fathers, feasts and of ours, is much more evident. Thou wilt say that flesh doth more expressly represent flesh then bread: and the slaying of a sacrifice the slaying of Christ: admit it. But to what end is Christ slain unto me, unless I be a partaker of him? Surely no more than dainties set afore me, whereof notwithstanding I shall not eat. Therefore our Sacraments, that first part not altogether pretermitted, but yet less curiously signified, of which we are fully persuaded in the history of the Gospel, do set as it were lively before our eyes, that same other principal part. For in very deed the use of bread, is much more to the nourishment of this life, than the use of flesh: and forasmuch as the life is in the blood, and the Fathers were restrained from all use of blood, which now we are no less commanded to drink in the wine Sacramentally, then spiritually to eat flesh in the bread: who seethe not that our Sacraments do excel those same old ones, even in the very signs and sacramental rites? 74. Question. Yet there remaineth another doubt, how it should come to pass, that the human nature of Christ, not yet existing in deed, should for all that be the thing signified of the old Sacraments, and so indeed that it should be truly communicated unto the Fathers. Answer. What thinkest thou therefore that the Sacraments of the old fathers signified? For neither do I think that thou dost agree unto them, who will have them to be certain resemblances joined only unto earthly promises. Question. Surely I consent not unto that ungodliness, which transformeth the people of God into a sty of Hogs. But I ask whether they think rightly enough, who think those same gifts in Christ bestowed upon the Church (which if it lack it cannot be a partaker of everlasting life) to be promised and given also in the Sacraments of the old fathers: but notwithstanding, those were not yet given forth which as yet were not. Answer. Surely thou dost wonderfully mollify the hard opinion of these men. But I doubt not too say with the Apostle, that they did truly and indeed eat the same meat that we do, and drank the same drink, to wit, even Christ himself 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. GOD and man. Question. How so? Answer. First, because the Apostle plainly speaketh so. Question. Yea, but the Apostle saith not in such plain words, that the Fathers did eat the same meat that we eat, or drank the same drink that we do, but rather that they did eat the same amongst themselves, albeit with a far other effect: as at this day aswell the Godly as the ungodly, are partakers of the same Sacraments, but some to salvation, and othersome to judgement. Answer. This Sophistical startinghole is confuted by four reasons. first, because that Argument of saint Paul were not strong enough, if the Sacraments should be made unequal in substance and in very deed. Again, because the Apostle pronounceth in plain and evident words that this meat itself, and this drink is Christ. Thirdly, because he changeth the very names of the old Sacraments and of the new, attributing the new unto the old, that he may declare that same thing too be both in the thing signified, and in the use. Fourthly, that thing plainly appeareth by the express words as well of others as also of Augustine, in the 45. treatise upon john, and in his Book of the profit of repentance, the 102. john. 1. 29. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Epistle and elsewhere. But now if this thing agree unto the Figures, much rather is it too be thought too agree, unto the Sacraments which are perpetual and which are appointed to signify this one thing alone. In which sense john the Baptist said, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world: & Paul, Christ our passover, is offered up. 75. Question. But what if I should except that all these things signify nothing else but the only efficacy or virtue of Christ to come? Answer. Yea, but his efficacy dependeth as well of those things which Christ should suffer for our cause, as of Christ himself. Why therefore shouldest thou now be more offended, when I say that the very human nature of Christ itself, albeit then it were not, notwithstanding that it was truly and indeed given unto the Fathers in the Sacraments and sealed up in them: then that the Fathers were justified and in very deed sanctified in spirit, by the righteousness of his flesh which yet was not borne. For this is the whole sum of the benefits of Christ. Furthermore when thou thinkest that the fathers were made partakers of those fruits which flow unto us out of the flesh of Christ (or out of Christ according to the flesh) shutting out that same partaking of Christ himself and of those things which he afterwards suffered for our sake, thou dost even as if reasoning of this same bodily life, thou wouldst have them too be nourished with meat, who notwithstanding do not in any sort receive the substance of meats. 76. Question. What therefore in sum sayest thou, is to be determined concerning this matter. Answer. To wit, that both before God himself promising, and before the eyes of our faith jesus Christ was always present, and also the whole mystery of performing our salvation: the which he in very deed bestowed upon all believers, & all believers as well in the simple word, as in the Sacraments added to the word, truly and effectually embraced. For john. 8. 56. Abraham with the eyes of faith saw the day of the Lord, which is a subsisting of things which yet were not, that is, to which now after a certain sort those things exist, which in very deed are not. Notwithstanding I grant the thing itself, that is to say, that Christ himself was not in act given unto them according too the flesh, or (as they speak) indeed but by right only. Question. But what meaneth this thing? Answer. I will speak therefore more plainly, and now I say in deed, that Christ given with all his gifts was both signified by the simple word, and in the sacraments of the new Testament, and offered unto us, to be spiritually by faith as we have said, laid hold upon, too righteousness, sanctification, and everlasting life, & that the Fathers had right to the self same Christ that was to be borne, and to all his gifts, both by the simple word & also by the promises added to the same word: & that therefore the fathers were even then truly accounted the members of Christ that was to be borne, through the power of the same spirit & by the same faith, & likewise were indeed truly justified & sanctified in him to come: to conclude that their condition differeth from ours, not indeed: but as they speak in the schools, according to more and less. For Christ is one, & the same things which he hath done for our sake are the same which we look for from him, and our faith is the same whether it respect things to come, or those things that yet are not, or those things that are already past. 77. Question When I consider the manner of speeches which belong unto the Sacraments, me thinks that I find somewhat to object against thee, touching those things that thou hast spoken, of the signification of the signs & of the thing signified, and also as touching that which thou hast entreated of our partaking with Christ. Answer. Those Phrases of speech not only Sacramental but also figurative are partly proper, and partly borrows. 78. Question. Which are proper? Answer. Those be proper, which distinctly attribute that too the sign, which belongeth to the sign, and that to the thing, which belongeth to the thing: as when Circumcision is called the sign of the covenant. Gen. 17. 11. Also the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Ro. 4. 11. And the blood of the Lamb, the sign. Exo. 12. 13. And the sabbath, the sign of calling too memory the creation of the world: & sealing the peculiar consecration of the people of Israel. Exod. 31. 13. 17. And those same two censures, a sign calling into their remembrance that same conspiracy of Dathan & Abiron. Num. 16 38. So the outward ministry of man, considered a part from the inward, is said to be nothing. 1. Cor. 3. 7. So the outward baptism of water, is properly distinguished from the inward efficacy of the spirit. 1. Pet. 3. 21. Question. But I find in no place, that this same word [Sign] is attributed too Baptism or too the lords supper. Answer. Why then, deny them too be Sacraments. For Sacraments undoubtedly are signs. Yea, and the Papists themselves, do grant that the substance of water and the Sacramental rites of Baptism are signs: & in that same Sacrament of theirs of the Altar, they do at least appoint the forms for signs. Further, the thing itself is most evident, that that is true which Irenaeus witnesseth (that I may pass over the other fathers) that they consist of one earthly & of an heavenly matter, whereof it must needs be that that be the sign of this. 79. Question. And what are those same Sacramental or figurative forms? Answer. First of all, they are those things to which the name of the Element is attributed too the thing signified, as when the Lamb is said to be the passover. Exod. 12. 11. Question. And yet there be some which say, that the Pesach or passover is properly spoken of the passing itself. Answer. Go to, be it so. But yet verily the passing itself can not be eaten, therefore they must in that place at the least grant, that the Lamb itself is called the passover, where the passover is said to be prepared & eaten. So Christ is called of john the Lamb of GOD, and is said of Saint Paul to be the passover. 1. Cor. 5. 7. Christians are one bread. 1. Cor. 10. 17. 80. Question. These things verily satisfy me. Go forward, I pray thee declare unto me the other sorts of sacramental speeches. Answer. The other sort is directly contrary to this, whereby the name of the thing itself is attributed to the Element. So the stone set up by jacob, is called Bethel. Gen. 28. 22. So the seven kine and the seven ears are seven years. Gen. 41. 27. So the name of jehovah in innumerable places is attributed to the Ark of the covenant, yea and to the very Altar of Moses. Exod. 17. 15. So by the name of the tongue of Canaan is understood the profession of pure religion. isaiah. 19 18. So the name of the holy Ghost is attributed to the Dove. john 1. 33. To be short, so the Rock was Christ. Question. Yea, but that same bodily Rock was not said to be Christ, but that same spiritual Rock. Answer. I know very well that same sophistical startinghole, as though forsooth this were spoken of the thing itself, and not of the sign. But what will these foolish Sophister's answer, if I should ask them, whether Paul yet meant not that same Rock, whereout that river of waters flowed? Surely they could answer nothing whereby their sophistry should not be easily convinced. For they must needs come to this point, that they must confess, that the name of spiritual Rock, was in respect of that very natural Rock attributed to Christ in respect of the bodily Rock, (that is as they themselves interpret it) considered spiritually and so far forth as it was a figure. Therefore they snarl themselves in their own snares, or else they must grant that Christ was called the Rock, because he was shadowed by a spiritual signification taken from the same Rock. But what will they do with these words of Saint Augustine, in his 45. Treatise upon john? Lo the signs changed, Faith remaining, there Christ is the Rock, to us Christ is that same that is set forth upon the Altar: and if thou look upon the visible form, it is another thing: but if upon the sensible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink. And in the 102. Epistle, some time the thing which signifieth, taketh the name of that thing which it signifieth. For so the rock was Christ, because it signifieth Christ. To conclude the same interpreteth the spiritual Rock mentioned in the 77. Psalm: not Christ himself (as they do) but such a Rock as should signify some spiritual thing. Question. Therefore proceed on. Answer. So to conclude, that bread is said to be the body given for us: and that same cup to be the blood shed for us. Question. But who doth so expound this? Answer. Amongst the rest, Theodoret in his Eranista by express words, whereof we shall entreat more at large in his proper place. 81. Question. And is there any more? Answer. The third kind of figurative sacramental speech is that, whereby the effect of the thing signified is attributed to the outward signs or instruments. So it is said that the tree of life was planted in Paradise, and the tree of the knowledge both of good and evil. And yet was neither life nor knowledge in those same trees, as if thou shouldest call a tree the Ague, which either causeth an Ague, or else driveth it away: but those same trees were only the effectual signs of these same effects. By the same figure Circumcision is called the covenant whereof only it was a sign, as God himself expoundeth it. Gen. 17. 11. & 14. And that same cup is called the new Testament in his blood. Luke 22. 20. So Baptism is called the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3. 5. So the Church is said to be purged by the washing of water, Ephes. 5. 26. So the outward word which being only the Chariot as it were of the divine power, is in many places said to be the word of life and the incorruptible seed: and to it is attributed, both cleansing and sanctification. So the sacrifices, are in many places called atonements, when notwithstanding the very blood of Goats and Oxen cannot sanctify any. So also the priests themselves are said to sanctify and to make an atonement for sins. levit. 16. 30. When as it only belongeth unto God to forgive sins and to make clean. So the Ministers of the Gospel are said to bind and to lose, Matth. 18. 18. And to forgive sins. john. 20. 25. yea also to save themselves & to save others. 1. Tim. 4. 16. Of which matter if it please thee, thou mayest see Augustine in his book of questions upon Leviticus, Chapter 84. 82. Question. Is there yet remaining any other kind of sacramental figures? Answer. There remaineth the fourth, quite contrary to that same third kind, whereby it is brought to pass, on the contrary that that which is proper unto the signs is drawn unto the thing signified. And hereof cometh that same inward Circumcision, or, of the heart. So the flesh or the body of the son of man, is said to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, which being bodily actions, can not be understood otherwise then improperly of the thing signified, that is to say, of Christ himself, offered either in the simple word or in the Sacraments, lest as Saint Augustine very well sayeth, a foul and heinous thing, to wit, the savage and barbarous eating of man's flesh seem to be commanded. And hereof come these same usual manner of speeches so often in the Fathers, wherein it is said that the body of our Lord lieth upon the Altar, yea also that it is seen, handled, goeth into the mouth, is made, falleth upon the ground, is consumed. 83. Question. Therefore makest thou it a metaphorical body, and a metaphorical Supper? Answer. In deed such are the filthy slanders of certain men, which we will confute in their proper place: For now I entreat generally of the Sacraments. In mean time know this, that we neither fayne any other body to Christ then that same true body given for us; nor transform that same most holy action into those same monstrous Chimeres, but only we say this (following the proportion of Faith) that that same very partaking of Christ himself, which is altogether of the mind and of Faith, (for this is the meat of the mind, & not of the belly) is not properly, but metaphorically declared, by those same bodily actions of eating and drinking. 84. Question. Then is it all one with thee, to believe, and spiritually to eat Christ? Answer. Thou causest me yet again to stray from my purpose. If thou take to believe, for the very action of faith itself, I consent unto thee. But if thou take it for the very habit of faith, than even like as thou dost distinguish the teeth the instrument of eating, from the eating itself: so it must needs be that thou discern faith itself, from that apprehension of Christ through faith, which is the spiritual eating. Question. Proceed on. Answer. I have now finished those things which belong unto those same Sacramental forms of speaking, aswell those that are proper, as those that are figurative. 85. Question. But when thou shalt say that the Sacraments were added unto the simple word, to the end, the more plainly to show forth the promises, many men marvel that these figurative speeches are used in the Sacraments, in which the speech ought rather to be most proper and most plain, lest any should be deceived. Answer. Here I pray thee mark what bold rashness the spirit of error hath in slandering, and what power it hath (when it pleaseth God) in persuading. For these men affirm, that the figurative speeches are more obscure than those that are proper: but contrariwise they themselves also teach & give many precepts concerning this matter, that Orators do very well use figures, not too darken, but to set out and make more plain their speech. Now they are very well used, when they both adorn that that we would have spoken with a certain dignity and grace, and better infix it in the minds of the hearers, then if any man should use a plain and simple speech. Now forasmuch as the Sacraments are therefore instituted that they may lead our understanding too an other thing, which by God's ordinance they signify from that which they are by nature: or rather, that I may use the words of S. Augustine against Maximinus. Lib. 3. cap, 18. that we mark, not what they are, but what they set out and show, because they are signs of things showing one thing and signifying another: who seethe not that the nature and use of the Sacraments is much better fixed in the mind of the hearer, when the signs are said to be the thing itself that they signify? Let us set down for example sake, that we may dwell still upon the former example that the Mayor or Magistrate of a Town or City of whom possession is given unto thee of some house delivering thee a key upon this condition, and speaking unto thee after this manner, this key is that same house standing in that place, which I deliver into thy hands, for to be used and enjoyed of thee: would not this speech much more confirm thee, then if he should say, this key be a sign unto thee, that I put thee into the possession of that house? Now this reason is set out by Theodoret. in his Eranista in these words, Christ would (saith he) that they that would be partakers of these divine mysteries (for he speaketh of the Supper of the Lord) should take heed not to consider the nature of the things which they see, but through this change of names (to wit whereby it is brought to pass, that the name of the thing signified is given unto the sign) they should give credit unto that change which is wrought by grace: That is, they should consider that thing, not as it is by nature, but how by God's commandment it is used too signify, that thing. And Augustine in the fiftieth seven Question upon Leviticus, Things (saith he) which signify somewhat, are wont to be signified by the name of that thing which they signify. Hence is that saying, the rock was Christ. For he said not the rock signified Christ, but as it were that he was that, that in very deed he was not by substance, but by signification. But of these things more in another place, where we will so entreat of set purpose of the right understanding of the words of the institution of the lords Supper, that we will also confute the contrary expositions. 86. Question. I would therefore thou shouldest set forth unto me what the use is of these same forms of speech concerning Sacraments so expounded of thee. Answer. We are by this means taught, that we attribute neither less nor more to the Sacraments, then is meet. Now they attribute less unto than, than is meet, who will have them only to be certain bare remembrances, shutting out a doors both the giving & receiving of the thing itself: the which opinion is herein taken away, because that the name of the sign is attributed to the thing signified, or the name of the effect itself to the sign itself, and again the name of the sign to the thing itself signified or too the effect thereof, as we have showed by those examples alleged. They also attribute much less than these to the Sacraments, who will only have them to be badges of outward profession: which opinion is altogether ungodly, and by the same reason is overthrown. Now we are taught again by these proper kind of speeches to attribute no more unto the Sacraments than is meet, & to shun that miserable bondage (as Saint Augustine speaketh more than once) whereby it is brought to pass, that the signs are taken for the things signified in his third Book of Christian doctrine. Chap. 5. and 7. 87. Question. But I pray thee, how many Sacraments thinkest thou to be instituted for the universal Christian church? Answer. Two, Baptism, and the lords Supper. Question. There are which rehearse many more, yea and that amongst those which have departed from the Antichristian Roman Church. Answer. I grant it: but yet the Papists gain nothing, which take this occasion to slander us, seeing the most Papistical Divines have not yet agreed, concerning the number of sacraments, but amongst us there is no strife in the matter itself, as we shall show in his place. Question. Let us agree upon this, how far I am to proceed in demanding. Answer. Although this were rather the part of the asker, then of the answearer, yet notwithstanding forasmuch as it so pleaseth thee, I signify unto thee that I am content that the handling of the contrary sentence being differred, thou hear what seemeth unto me concerning every one of these questions: so notwithstanding that I may answer shortly, as the matter requireth to the contrary reasons, so far forth as we may way all and singular things, which are said for the confirmation of the contrary opinions. 88 Question. Admit that we have but only two such Sacraments, I demand of thee in the first place, what Baptism is. Answer. This word properly declareth dipping into the water, & by consequent washing away: of which sort many were instituted in the law, Hebr. 9 10. to which were added afterwards the Pharisaical washings, whereof mention is made in the 7. of Mark, verse 4. Now by the figure * This figure is a changing or putting of a near name in signification for the natural name itself. Antonomasia it is taken for the Sacrament, by which we are are openly professed to Christ. But by translation it setteth forth the afflictions of the godly and some great and grievous calamities, yea and the cross itself, as it is taken. Luke. 12. 50. peradventure fetching the Metaphor from thence, for that in many places of the Psalms especially are understood by the name of waters and of gulfs, miseries, wherewith a man is as it were swallowed up. To be short, it is taken for the pouring forth of the gifts of the holy Ghost, as Acts. 1. 5. and for the doctrine of john who first baptized: as Acts 18. 25. & 19 3. 89. Question how therefore dost thou define baptism taken for the first Sacrament of the Church of Christ? Answer. I define it to be an holy action commanded of Christ to the Church, in which by a fit proportion of signs, we do spiritually and through Faith after a certain sort put on Christ himself, with all his gifts necessary to salvation, and are therein washed with him, and die with him, are buried and rise again, and by which our mutual fellowship in Christ is ratified. 90. Question. And which are these signs? Answer. The Elemental sign is water. But the Sacramental rites are three: the dipping into the water, the remaining in the water, and the coming out of the water again. 91. Question. But there are many more Elements, and many more rites in Baptism used in old tyme. Answer. I answer out of Cyprian, that we must not mark what any hath done before us, or what any have thought meet to be done: but what Christ who was before all hath done first himself, and hath delivered unto others to be done. But of these things we will entreat hereafter when we shall come to the confutation of the contrary opinions. 92. Question. What representeth the water, and what is the analogy or proportion thereof, with the thing signified? Answer. It signifieth the very blood of Christ, and by the figure Synecdoche whole Christ himself, who by the shedding forth of his blood, hath both washed away that same natural malice and corruption that was in us, & hath satisfied for our sins. Now the proportion of water being an Element ordained for the washing away of filthiness, doth of itself agree with the blood of Christ, by the sheadding forth whereof only, all the filthinesses of sin are washed away. 93. Question. What are those same three rites or ceremonies? Answer. To wit, that we must be as it were dipped by a spiritual power and manner, in the very blood of the Son of GOD: by the force whereof that same washing away of sins by little and little is brought to pass, that so at the length we may go away cleansed: as they that are defiled specially with those same spots which cannot easily be washed of, they must be so long washed with water, until they receive their first cleanness. 94. Question. Forsomuch as that also was signified by the purifyings of the law, and that same benefit also was truly performed in Christ now too be borne, too them who lawfully and rightly did use the same, what need was there that they should be abolished, that baptism might be appointed in their place? Answer. First it behoved that they should be abolished; that he might be believed to be come already whom they shadowed too come afterwards. Again forasmuch as they were additions unto the Sacrifices for sins, they ought too be abolished together with them. Lastly, their repetition or often repentance did show their imperfection, and therefore it must needs be that another washing must come in place which should not be done again too one person, and which is the Sacrament of that washing which was once performed for ever. 95. Question. But what thinkest thou of that same ancient sprinkling of the blood? Answer. I think that that did more grossly express & represent the blood of Christ to come, but yet less fitly, forasmuch as blood doth not take away spots, but rather doth spot things that are already spotted. 96. Question. What dost thou mean by the word [of putting on? Answer. The Apostle so speaketh that he may show that that same power of the spirit is joined to baptism, whereby it is brought too pass that we are as it were knit & engrafted into Christ himself, so as we grow up into one body together with him which is the chiefest effect of baptism. Gal. 3. ver. 27. And certainly it seemeth unto me that this same manner of speaking sprung from hence, that those that were grown in years being to be baptized should put of their Garments that either they might put on others: or else being become new men, might take them again. To which Analogy or proportion the same Apostle hath respect. Col. 3. 9 Ephe. 4. 22. 97. Question. What dost thou signify by the word [of washing? Answer. The double effect of this putting on, one, whereby this natural corruption which Paul calleth sin, sinning is abolished in us: the other whereby the fruits thereof, that is to say sins, are forgiven us, or rather are not imputed, the punishment which we deserved for them, being satisfied by Christ: & also his obedience being put in the place of them, whereby he fulfilled the law for us. 98. Question But too what end are we said too die, to be buried, and too rise again into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? Answer. By that means the Apostle himself being the Author. Rom. 6. 4. etc. is declared both the proportion and effect of those same Sacramental rites. For so we are taught to place our whole faith in Christ alone, who died, was buried & rose again from death too everlasting life for us, inasmuch as he is our brother. The dipping therefore into water setteth before our eyes that same bottomless gulf of God's judgement, by which for our sins laid upon him, Christ is as it were swallowed up. The remaining in the water, in what sort or how short soever it be, doth as it were set him before our eyes to be looked upon, holden in his Grave as it were, by the chains of death. But coming out of the water, is as it were a lively picture of his victory, whereby it came to pass that being dead he overcame death, and being buried, he overcame corruption, that we ourselves also being engrafted into him by faith, (of which engraffting also Baptism is a pledge) we are become partakers of the same power, whereby he performed all those things first in himself. 99 Question. But yet that same old man, to wit, corruption was not in him: neither the fruits thereof, that is to say, sins. Answer. In very deed none of both these were in him, because he was void of all vice, & most holy even from the very moment of his conception. For he came to take away sin. Yet notwithstanding he had both those things upon him, taking mortality & all infirmities brought into our nature through sin, except that sin itself, and to be short the punishment laid upon him, whereby we are reconciled. Now these rites do teach that all these things are communicated unto us in this Sacrament, our corruption dying in us, being planted as it were into the death of Christ himself, and our sins also dying with him: that same stay answering Christ's burial which is between the dipping in and the coming out, lively painteth out unto us the proceeding of the power and benefit of Christ's death by little & little declaring itself in us. Finally, there followeth the coming out of the water again, signifying our new state and condition, the first being abolished, and answering to the resurrection of Christ: who as he rose again into everlasting life, death and mortality being overcome and swallowed up in the very grave, so at the length he will work the self same things in us, whereof we have now received the earnest and pledge. 100 Question. Now I understand why baptism is called the washing of regeneration, why we are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, why the church is said to be cleansed by the washing of water, and to be short, why baptism is called of Augustine, the Sacrament of faith, and of Tertullian, the sealing of faith. But yet I understand not that which thou didst add, concerning that mutual consociation and fellowship which we have in Christ. Answer. This also is an excellent effect of baptism, but yet a secondary effect, to wit, depending upon that same former. For that same form of baptizing into one and the self same Christ, doth both separate Christians from all other men, and also join them together, as it were one body under one and the self same head amongst themselves, as the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 12. 13. 101. Question. I would also know somewhat of those correspondent figures of baptism, And first what that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth. Answer. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are called figures correspondent to figures, the name of figures being largely taken, whereby is declared that some Sacrament is not otherwise properly so called (that is an holy action commanded to the whole Church as a certain ordinary thing, which is the seal of the promise of everlasting life) but some certain thing that God hath simply appointed also for this end, that he might signify some other thing to be fulfilled in the new Testament. So in that Noah was saved out of the waters, and by the waters themselves in the Ark, it was a Type or figure of Baptism, whereby the Church, shut up as it were in Christ, is saved. So Israel passing through the Sea, and coming safe thorough a Cloud from Heaven shrouding them, it represented the mystery of the same Baptism. 102. Question. But why dost thou use the word [of sealing. Answer. That I may meet with the slanders of them, that say that we take baptism, only as a token, or rather only as it were a difference, whereby Christians are distinguished from them that be no Christians: forasmuch as this sacrament succeeded Circumcision, which was not only a sign, but also a seal of righteousness by faith. 103. Question I would therefore thou shouldest show unto me particularly the causes, the parts and the effects of Baptism. Answer. The efficient cause is Christ. The outward & visible matter is water with the sacramental rites: the inward & invisible matter is Christ himself, with his gifts. The outward form is the manner of administration itself, ordained of Christ himself: the inward form the baptism of the holy Ghost, the essential parts are the signs & the things signified. The whole parts, is the Element; Christ himself with his gifts, the action and the word. 104. Question. But what is this word? Answer. Teach ye all, baptizing them in the name of the father, the Son, & the holy Ghost. Mat. 28. 19 Preach the Gospel to every creature: he that shall believe and be baptised shallbe saved. Mark. 16. 15. & 16. 105. Question What meaneth [in the name? Answer. Hereby is declared, that Baptism is a solemn vow, whereby he that is baptised doth wholly vow himself too one GOD in Trinity: also a solemn action in which GOD witnesseth, that he receiveth him that is baptized into his own hand, that in very deed this same form is as it were an Epicomie or summary of the whole Christian faith, with the solemn sealing thereof. 106. Question. And yet notwithstanding it seemeth that the Apostles changed somewhat in that same form, as being said to have baptised in the name of Christ. Answer. By these words it is not showed after what manner the Apostles baptised. For who can probably think that the Apostles in that express prescription of our Master, in evident and plain words commanded, did change any thing at all: And it is most plain throughout the whole Ecclesiastical History, that that form was always kept. 107. Question. But to what end is that same, [into the name of Christ? Answer. To wit, that the end itself, the fruits itself, and to be short, the very matter itself of Baptism might be declared. Question. But what are the ends of Baptism? Answer. This shall very well be understood by the effects. Question. And what are the effects of Baptism? Answer. If thou call Baptism that only which the Minister doth, the effect of Baptism is nothing. Question. This seemeth a hard saying to me. Answer. And yet so Paul speaketh, when he sayeth that he which planteth, and he 1. Cor. 3. 7. which watereth are nothing. But the case standeth thus. In very deed the ministry of men is somewhat, yea indeed it is that very thing, that whosoever despiseth, despiseth GOD himself. But as I have said before, so God Luke. 10. 16. useth the ministry of men, that the whole working power resteth in God himself, neither doth the same here fall out as in them whom God useth to the maintenance of this mortal life of men. For fathers in begetting of children are such instruments of GOD, that the engendering power of the body, and the receiving power of pouring in life, is engrafted in Fathers and Mothers, and the same GOD hath given his power both to meats for nourishment, and too medicines for curing of diseases. But in those which concern the Salvation of men lost in themselves, he so useth their work whom he appointeth too the word of salvation, and too the administration of the Sacraments, that besides the declaration of his will, from whom they are sent, they bring to pass nothing at all. Therefore the effect of the minister is this, that pouring forth water, he wetteth him that is to be baptized: but now the only effect of water poured forth, whether it be common water or sacramental, appointed to an holy use, if it be simply considered in itself, is, that his body who is sprinkled with it, be made wet and washed. But he which baptizeth inwardly by the spirit, (that is to say by his divine power) doth alone perform far other things: to wit, altogether divine and heavenly things (notwithstanding the ministry of men come between) to wit the forgiveness of sins, by free undeserved imputation and regeneration which is the effect of the holy Ghost dwelling in us, and by little and little abolishing sin in us. 108. Question. Dost thou therefore distinguish between sin and sins? Answer. Yea, what else? For the Apostle is wont to call that natural corruption of the whole man, sin, or else the flesh set against the spirit. john. 3. 6. and oftentimes in other places: which also by itself is sin, when it dissenteth from the Law of God, and enforceth to sin, whereupon it is called sin sinning Rom. 7. 13. Now all the transgressions of the commandments of GOD are called sins, that is to say those which sin bringeth forth in us, even as a husband begetteth children by his wife. Rom. 7. 5. 109. Question. What therefore dost thou call remission of sins. Answer. That same great benefit whereby it is brought to pass, that the satisfaction and obedience of Christ being imputed unto us, those transgressions are not only laid too our charge, but also in their place the fulfilling of the Law, performed by Christ is set and appointed. 110. Question. But what callest thou regeneration? Answer. Another gift of the same Christ, whereby it is brought too pass, that that corruption both in respect of the guiltiness of it, and in respect of itself only is not imputed unto us, but also is corrected by little and little in us. 111. Question. But doth that same power of the spirit by little and little abolishing the old man in us, and creating the new, begin even from the very first moment of Baptism? Answer. Fie upon this error also of the work wrought. The fruit of Baptism therefore beginneth in that moment or time wherein faith beginneth, which in very deed sometime goeth before Baptism, as appeared in Cornelius. Act. 10. 47. But sometime followeth Baptism, as in children that are baptized sometime slowlier, and sometimes later, as they grow and wax, and and are of the number of the elect. Finally the fruit of Baptism is not to be restrained to that same moment wherein it is ministered to any, as neither is the fruit of the simple word, the seed lying so long hid in the minds of the hearers, till that by the virtue of faith wrought, sometimes later and sometimes flower, showing itself, it fructifieth. 112. Question. Baptism therefore doth not abolish only sins past. Answer. Yea rather the fruit of baptism is spread forth through out the whole life of believers. For that same gross error was the cause that many deferred baptism until death: which is a great wonder that it was not more vehemently handled of learned bishops. 113. Question. Dost thou not think that original sin is taken away by baptism? Answer. Surely I think that it is taken away, concerning the guiltiness, so that Faith be present. But the vice itself although it die by little and little in the believers, yet notwithstanding in deed remaineth: and it must needs be sin, and be so called, because whatsoever resisteth the will and spirit of God, must of necessity be vicious. 114. Question. But is this same Sacrament of baptism, an instrument altogether, and absolutely necessary to obtain salvation in Christ? Answer. No, not so. Question. And yet not only the late writers, but also many ancient fathers have thought it so far forth at the least necessary, that they have esteemed, those destituted of the light of the life of heaven, which were not lightened with that same outward baptism of the Church. Answer. Concerning this opinion, from whence flowed that same shameful error of the Clinics, and Baptism of Midwives we shall see afterwards. Now I say that the Sacrament of Baptism is thus far necessary, that he that neglecteth it, doth also deprive himself (as much as is in him) of the benefit of Christ, the which sin notwithstanding as all others, may be taken away by true repentance: but that he can not seem to be a contemner of Baptism, who through no negligence of his, much less fault, doth not obtain Baptism, in that order which is instituted in the Church. 115. Question. But dost thou think that the baptism administered by john, and afterwards of the Apostles by the commandment of Christ was one and the same? Answer. I would willingly that this question were omitted as at this day unprofitable. notwithstanding because it maketh for the clearer interpretation of certain places of the holy scripture: and from thence the Anabaptists seek somewhat, whereunder to shroud their pestilent opinion, I refuse not also somewhat to entreat of this thing, when we shall come to the confutations of the contrary opinions. In the mean time I say that in very deed the Baptism first ministered of john, and afterward by the commandment of Christ was one and the same, albeit, it seemeth to be so much more plentifully performed in that Apostolical Baptism then in that of john's, as the doctrine is more plain of the Apostles than the doctrine of john, and yet in very deed the same. 116. Question. Now I would have certain questions pertaining unto this matter distinctly set forth unto me, and first whom thou thinkest fit to be baptised. For there are who think that all are to be baptised without difference, so they resist it not. Answer. This foul error flowed out of two fountains. For they thought that the beginning of our salvation was from Baptism: and further that Baptism saved us, even by the work wrought, as they speak. 117. Question. Others think that those only are to be baptised, that are of years of discretion, and are indeed such as make confession of a true Faith, by the example of the Eunuch. Acts 8. 37. Answer. The error of these men sprang from thence, that they thought Baptism to be ministered in vain, unless Faith presently went before Baptism. Question. What? hast thou not said before that the things signified in the Sacraments, are laid hold upon by the only hand of Faith? Answer. So it is. But that Faith may follow the Sacrament, yea though it were ministered many years before, is no more absurd, then if I should say that (which we think also we prove daily) to wit, that it oftentimes cometh to pass, that the things which we have contemned when they were spoken unto us, that being marked, they begin to profit us, yea many years after, and sometimes in the very last breath of our life. 118. Question. Whom then thinkest thou meet to be baptised? Answer. All they who can rightly show the conveyances of the covenant, for the sealing whereof Baptism is instituted. 119. Question. But who do rightly show them? Answer. They who (if they be grown in years) testify their consent. Question. Wilt thou not then admit any of years of discretion, unless they plainly profess a right Faith? Answer. None in deed. For what else should I probably believe, that I can seal in them? 120. Question. To what end then wilt thou admit children? Answer. Neither will I admit all infants: for neither will I receive the children of the Turks, nor of the jews. Question. Why so? Answer. Because they are not comprehended in the tables of the covenant. Question. But they may be instructed in Christianity. Answer. Why, let them be instructed or become Catechistes: and then at length let them be baptised. 121. Question. I could easily grant this unto thee, concerning the Turks children, and the children of all those which were never comprehended in the covenant, but wilt thou reckon the jews with these? Answer. Yea, but after an unlike manner. For they indeed were never comprehended in the covenant, but now the people of the jews, retecting the Mediator, are fallen from the covenant, the Gentiles being engrafted in their place. 122. Question. But is it sufficient (as thou thinkest) to be borne of the faithful that none be rejected and put off from Baptism? Answer. So I think. For the words of the covenant are plain, I will be thy God Gen. 17. 7. and the God of thy seed. Now by the name of seed, the Apostle teacheth that all the Gentiles are contained, following the faith of Abraham. Gal. 3. 8. And the same Apostle also plainly sayeth, that those children are holy, which are borne, either of the parents being a believer: by which sanctification 1. Cor. 7. 14. no other thing can be understood then that same comprehension in the covenant: whereby those that are holy, are discerned from those that are profane. 123. Question. But the example of Esau doth declare, and also daily experience doth confirm it, that many begotten also even of those that be most holy, do nothing at all belong unto the covenant. Answer. Many also of those that are grown in years, professing Faith with their mouths, are hypocrites. But those same particular judgements are to be left unto God. But that we should generally hope well of all those which are borne of the faithful, both the indefinite form of the covenant doth command us, and love doth warn us. 124. Question. But without Faith it is impossible to please God. Answer. It is one thing for a man to please God in very deed, another thing to be appointed by this secret decree of God (as I may say) to this good will of God. For that indeed is brought to pass in those that are of the years of discretion, their faith coming between: but faith springeth from that same decree of God's good will. For why do we believe, but because it so pleaseth him? we please him therefore also believing: and we should not indeed believe, unless first (in the order of causes and time) we had freely and undeservedly pleased him. Question. But why dost thou add in those that are of the years of discretion? Answer. Because there is another respect of children dying before they are taught, for as much as Faith after the ordinary manner, is by hearing: and extraordinarily by the only inward motion of the holy Ghost, of which the one cannot agree unto infants by no place of scripture, neither canst thou gather it by any little conjecture. For faith (whether it arise by hearing, or extraordinarily) necessarily presupposeth knowledge of the free promise in Christ, which he applieth unto himself that believeth: which by no manner of mean can fall out and agree into infants. Question. How then shall we think that infants are acceptable unto God, that they should be reckoned of him in the covenant of the Church, and that therefore the seal itself of the covenant should not be denied unto them? Answer. First I say, probably that they are to be thought acceptable unto God, by everlasting election in Christ, of which this is a testimony sufficient enough, that he would have them to be borne of godly parents. Now the fitness of this testimony (leaving unto God those same particular secret judgements) doth appear, out of those plain words of the covenant, I will be thy God, & the God of thy seed. Whereupon also the Apostle gathereth, that even they are holy, who are borne either of their Parents being a believer: Moreover they please God also in the person of their Godly Parents, even to a thousand generations, as God witnesseth in the law. Exod. 20. 125. Question. But this is a promise of the law, and we entreat of the covenant of the Gospel. Answer. I grant it, but thou must remember that all the promises of the Law, in Christ, who for us fulfilled that same condition of the Law, are become promises of the Gospel, and confirmed to all believers. 126. Question. But thou dost not account these infants in the number of believers, whereupon it followeth that no place is left to infants for this same promise of the Law. Answer. Nay, that followeth not. For the faith of the Parents from whom he is borne, doth come between. Question. Wilt thou therefore have children saved by the Faith of another, that is to say, by the Faith of their Parents? Answer. It is plain that the Faith of others and the prayers of those that are holy, doth profit many unfaithful to mitigate their punishments: yea also the conversion of Saul teacheth that the gift of Faith may be so obtained for some, if their opinion be true, who have written that this was granted by the prayers of Steven. Notwithstanding I would not easily say that any should be saved by an other man's Faith, lest any man should so take me, as if I should say, that the Faith of the Parents is imputed to Infants, as it were believing through an other man's faith: which in very deed is no less false and absurd, then if I should say, that any man could live by an other man's soul, or be wise by an other man's wisdom. But certainly this I may say truly, that the Faith of godly Parents coming between, it is brought to pass that the Infants either borne or to be borne are holy, that is to say, are reckoned in the covenant, and therefore are saved. Whereof that thou mayest doubt nothing, tell me I pray thee whereupon doth faith lay hold: Doth it not lay hold upon that which the promise containeth, which is the object and ground of Faith itself? Question. Yes verily. Answer. Therefore the Faith of godly Parents doth lay hold upon this promise, Gen. 17. (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) both for themselves and for their seed. Now this promise is as much as this, I do make a covenant of salvation with thee and with thy seed. 127. Question. Therefore should all be saved that are borne of godly Parents? Answer. Surely we do not without cause presume that they are saved, as those which seem probably to be comprehended in the covenant, and that by no feigned conjecture. But in mean time this nothing at all preiudiceth the secret and particular judgements of God: and it is plain that they are shut out from the covenant, who when they come to years of discretion, shake off through unbelief that same grace. 128. Question. But when thou sayest that the things signified in Baptism are sealed by faith only, what shall we say to be sealed in infants, who when they are baptised are not replenished with any faith in deed, and to those that are dead before they can be taught the faith? Answer. Surely we do baptize them as though they should overlyve others. Now that which I have spoken concerning faith, belongeth only unto those that are come to the years of discretion, & yet their baptism shall not therefore be in vain. For that shall be ratified in them, that, as I have said, the faith of the godly Parents coming between, was now bestowed upon them when they were borne, to wit, the engraffement into the covenant: and therefore the forgiveness of sin sinning, and finally the whole fruit of Baptism. To conclude that same solemn naming by the commandment of Christ, of the father the Son and the holy Ghost cannot be in vain, neither are the prayers of the Church which are conceived over him which is too be baptised in vain. But let these things be subject unto the judgement of the Church. For neither am I ignorant that it may also be said, that faith is so given unto them by power, as by power and not by act and use, they are endued with a reasonable soul. But I have showed what seemeth most probable unto me: neither doth the diversity of opinions in this matter shake or weaken the Christian faith itself. 129. Question. Forasmuch as certain old Fathers attributed very much in this controversy to the faith of the Parents and of the Church, whence I pray you came this questioning, dost thou believe? I believe. Dost thou forsake? I forsake? Answer. I am not ignorant how diligently Augustine studied writing too Bonifacius too excuse this kind of vowing and promising then used in the Baptism of Infants. But who seeth not that this began from hence that that which was wont to be said and done in the Baptism of those which were grown of years of discretion, were by the negligence of the Bishops, and peradventure by the superstition of some, drawn too the baptism of infants? Of which thing God willing we will then entreat, when we shall come to the confutation of the contrary opinions. 130. Question. I have heard what thou dost think of the children of Turks and jews. But whether dost thou reckon in the same number, their children which take part with the Bishop of Rome? Answer. No not so. Question. But yet you say that the Pope is another Antichrist: and therefore they who are called Papists must needs be fallen from Christ. Answer. I grant it. But admit that the Papacy be not Christianisme but rather Antichristianisme: yet notwithstanding Christianisme hath remained and doth remain as it were buried in the Papacy. 131. Question. What thou meanest, I do not yet sufficiently perceive. Answer. I say that our Lord jesus Christ both would & yet will, that his Church should lie hid in the very bowels of the papacy itself. Question. Whereupon dost thou gather this? Answer. By consequent. For I say, that wheresoever there is a Proper Note of the Church, that the Church is there. 132. Question But how miserably is that church defiled, whether thou look upon the doctrine itself, or upon the mark of Baptism the Note thereof? Answer. Admit it be so far forth defiled, that it cannot be known of any but of cunning and skilful men: yet notwithstanding it is in that same mark of his, I baptise thee in the name of the Father the Son and the holy Ghost. Question. What geatherest thou thereof? Answer. That the Papistry is at no hand Christianity, but rather so great a straying, as he that doth embrace it & abide in it, he must fall from Christianity. The same is said of Grecisme which also is so great a straying from Christianity, that no man can truly be a * in opinion. Grecian and a Christian at this day. I say notwithstanding that the Gentiles (which now are comprehended generally in those same two factions and inclined to that cutting of of theirs which Paul manifestly foretold) are not for all that to be reckoned cut of, as long as the outward note of Baptism shall endure there: and further I say that the Church is gathered out of the midst and in the midst of Papistry. Question. Canst thou prove that, by any fit example of the times past? Answer. Yea forsooth. For what thinkest thou was Pharisaism, Saducisme and too be short, judaisme in the times while Christ lived? Surely such that no man was a jew (if thou look upon the very body of that people) which did not make the covenant of the Lord in vain. And yet notwithstanding true Religion was for a time in the midst of Pharisatsme and Saducisme, yea and in the most corrupt judaisme, so long as Circumcision the seal of the covenant flourished amongst that people. But Circumcision being abolished and the note of Christianisme being rejected, now the people of the jews are justly said to be cut off. The like I think not to be affirmed of Papistry itself: but of Christianity as it were drowned in the midst of Papistry, and yet notwithstanding a little lifting up itself. 133. Question. But forasmuch as he that is a Papist is not a Christian in deed, wouldst thou admit such a man being of the years of discretion & not baptised, to baptism? Answer. No, unless he were first become instructed & renounce Popery. 134. Question And wouldst thou admit the child borne of such kind of Parents? Answer. Neither truly would I do that rashly. Question. Upon what conditions then? Answer. To wit, either of some of the Parents or kinsfolks renouncing Popery and having the child in their custody, would request this of me: or else some fit witness present, who would promise the godly and right instruction of the child. Question. And wouldst thou do the same thing too the child of a Turk or a jew? Answer. Surely I would do it in the first sort. Neither should such a child be deemed too be sprung from the jews or Turks, forasmuch as they renouncing their false religion, and being now baptized themselves, or requiring Baptism, they did desire Baptism for their children and Offspring. But if the Question were of those that are of the years of discretion, yea though there were present a thousand that would promise for them, yet I would refuse too minister Baptism unto their child. Question. And why so rather then too the child of the Papists? Answer. Because neither judaisme nor turcism is Christianisme, neither in turcism or now in judaisme is Christianisme: that is, I have not any probableconiecture whereby I may gather, that any borne of the jews or Turks is holy, that is to say, which doth belong unto the covenant of God. But now albeit Papisme be not true Christianisme, yet notwithstanding Christianisme is as yet in Papism, as may appear by that, that there hath yet remained safe and sound, that same substantial form of Baptism which Satan yet could not utterly abolish. 135. Question. Dost thou think the same of the children of every kind of Heretics? Answer. No, not so, for I except those, who abolishing the baptism of Christ (now that is the baptism of Christ, which is ministered so as Christ hath instituted) have brought in an other, although they falsely say that it is the Baptism of Christ, which is said of the Eunomians and Presilianistes and divers others. Question. wouldst thou therefore baptize these again? Answer. Nay rather I would baptise than being not yet baptized with the baptism of Christ. 136. Question. Hitherto therefore hath been spoken of those which are to be baptized. Now I ask whose office it is to baptise. Answer. Surely it is their office, to whom the care of administering the word is commanded. For the Sacraments are as it were seals set unto the tables of the word, and Christ sending forth his Apostles and prescribing the form of Baptism, hath joined these two together. 137. Question. But Paul saith, that he was not sent to baptize. 1. Cor. 1. 16. Answer That that is not to be understood precisely, but by way of comparison, it appeareth by that, that in the self same place he saith, he baptized the house of Stephana, which he would never have done, unless he had been called unto it. Therefore he saith that he was sent that he might specially labour by the preaching of the Gospel to plant Churches, in which he appointed Pastors of whom rather as also of their fellow helpers the Evangelists, all believers (as the matter required) should be baptized. But it appeareth that the old Church especially now when baptism was become more laboursome, used in many things the help of Deacons. But to be short seeing that Baptism is merely one part of the Church ministry, it is rightly administered, by ministers only that are lawfully called. 138. Question But whether dost thou believe that the popish either Bishops, or Priests, are lawfully called? Answer. I believe nothing less, no not by their own Canons, otherwise not very pure. 139. Question. Yea but they have the laying on of hands, or ordination which they say we lack. Answer. But how often is it that the Canons do forbid, that he should be esteemed lawfully ordained, who is not lawfully elected? Now the way of lawful election is too be sought of us out of the Apostle, especially so far forth as belongeth to the examination of doctrine and manners. Therefore they want the foundation of lawful ordination, and therefore they boast in vain of the laying on of hands, which notwithstanding it shall not be hard for us to show to have more purely than they have it, as perhaps I will show in another place more fully. 140. Question. therefore what thinkest thou of Baptism ministered of private persons, or by such as execute not the ministery of the word? Answer. I would esteem it no more, then that which some private man should do according to his own will in the name of the king or of the common wealth: or as a feigned seal devised of some private man according to the apish immutation of the public seal, and so set to some instrument: or as a fable. Question. Thou wouldst then much less allow baptism ministered in sport, or of Midwives. Answer. Out upon that gross and filthy profanation of the holy ministery. 141. Question. But what if necessity do urge it? Answer. I have already answered, that the beginning of our salvation is derived from the tables of the covenant itself, and not from the seal set unto them, which yet notwithstanding if any despise he is worthily deprived of the benefit of them: but that he seems not too have contemned them, which could not obtain them, keeping the right order. 142. Question. But are not private persons and those which are not lawfully called, to be thought in like place & degree? Which if it be true, certainly the baptism administered by popish priests must be in vain and serve to no purpose. Answer. Here I will not stick too borrow that from the Lawyers, which maketh greatly to this purpose: the fault is either in the person, or in the thing or in both: in the person, as when the Magistrate is corruptly made, who notwithstanding (as Varro witnesseth in his fifth book of the Latin tongue) is no Magistrate. But the Lawyers do more subtly distinguish between him who is a Magistrate, (to wit, a lawful one) and him who is in the Magistracy: as when they dispute that it is one thing too be Proconsul, and another thing too be in the Proconsulshippe: another thing to be Praetor, then to excerise the Office of the Praetorship, as is said of Barbarius Philippus: another thing too be Tutor, than too exercise the office of Tutorshippe: in so much as that sometimes he that is a Magistrate (as for example if he be an outrageous man) may be a Magistrate indeed but yet he can not execute the Office of a Magistrate. The fault is in the act when it is not ordedered rightly, that is to say, when such things are omitted which are of the nature of the act itself. Now in the Papistical Baptism, the fault is not in the act in which that same principal form is kept, which other strange and superfluous things cannot hurt, but the fault is in the person, for they are annexed to the Bishops & too the Elders, But this fault cannot hurt the action. For (that I may come more near too our Divines) they that are not lawfully called unto the ministry, and yet notwithstanding sit in the chair of the ministery, by the consent of some men (although deceived) albeit in respect of the Persons themselves, they be not true pastors, yet notwithstanding they are to be accounted in another place than they that have neither lawful nor unlawful calling. So Caiphas indeed was not the lawful high priest, because he had by giving of money entered into the high Priesthood, yet notwithstanding sitting in the chair of the high Priesthood, (albeit unawares) he uttereth a prophesy. And before this Bishop sitting in his seat, the Lord goeth to the temple and observeth those divine ceremonies that were not yet abolished. So the pharisees so far forth as they sat in Moses' chair, are commanded too be heard, which Chair notwithstanding the most of them had gotten by ambition and evil means. Finally so are those things holden for firm which some man accounted a Magistrate commandeth, albeit he were promoted thither by evil endeavours, which it is certain happened unto one Barbarius Philippus a servant, and yet notwithstanding through error created Praetor of Rome. To conclude a faulty vocation, may hurt the conscience of him who hath violently broken in upon that office, but it doth not defile those things which are done of him as if he were lawfully called. 143. Question. But that same baptism administered by Sacrificing Priests is defiled with many spots. Answer. Thou sayest very true. But that same essential form of the Baptism of Christ, by the singular goodness of GOD hath remained in it, the truth whereof cannot be hindered by any added devices. 144. Question. Should not Baptism then be true baptism, unless the pure word of the institution were used? Answer. No verily, it could not be. For the form giveth every thing his essence or being. Question. But if the fault in the form as thou sayest be so great, that it defile the thing itself: doth not a fault in the very explication of baptism itself do it much more, in which thou art not ignorant how grievously the Papists offend. Answer. No not so. For albeit that the corruption of the doctrine be greater and more grievous before GOD, than the corruption of the outward form, yet notwithstanding it doth not so much defile the action of baptism itself, because the fault of doctrine sticketh too the teacher, neither doth it hurt the truth of the Sacrament otherwise rightly ministered: but the fault of the form is in the thing itself and therefore may be such (as for example, if men offend in the Element itself, or in the word of institution, or in some rite) that is merely that it defileth the action itself. As for example sake, if any should not baptize in the name of the Trinity, or should name the son inequal, or should baptize in the name of the Virgin Mary, or in steed of water, should use (specially, wittingly, and willingly) I can not tell what other thing altogether contrary, or else should omit sprinkling or diping, certainly this could not be the Baptism instituted of Christ. But contrariwise if it might be, that even Satan himself should sit in the chair of the ministry, and should minister the lawful Baptism of Christ, it should be the true Baptism of Christ, because it dependeth neither upon the knowledge of the minister nor upon his conscience. 145. Question. Dost thou therefore think that they do well, who renouncing Popery & embracing true Christianity do offer their children to the Priests to be baptised of them? Answer. No not so. Question. And yet thou sayest that that is a true baptism. Answer. And yet doth not that follow here of. For although that be available that is given, yet notwithstanding it followeth not that, he is without sin that required it. For seeing that many things are impure in the Papistical rites of Baptism, he is not devoid of sin which giveth occasion of the use of them. that I say nothing that so by this means they are nourished in their bastardly calling, whom those that should chief take charge thereof, aught by Christ's example too drive out of the house of God. Question. What thinkest thou them to be done of those fathers, who embracing true religion dwell amongst the Papists? Answer. I advise them that they spare no cost and leave no way unsought, that they may provide to have their children baptised purely, and that rather they defer their baptism, then become guilty of those corruptions. 146. Question. But what if in the mean time the child die? Answer. Surely the child itself, shall not bear the blame: and we have said often times already, that it is not the want of baptism, but the contempt of it in itself, that maketh a man unworthy of the benefit of the covenant. Question. But the Lord witnesseth that it shall come to pass, that whosoever is not circumcised, shall be cut off. Genes. 17. 14. Answer. If thou understand this of the shutting out aswell from holy exercises of religion, as from civil fellowship, because it is added, from amongst his people, this shallbe the menacing, that the uncircumcised were neither admitted to the exercises of religion, nor to civil offices. But if thou take this of the shutting out from the very covenant of everlasting salvation, this that is added, for he hath overthrown my covenant, showeth that it must be understood of those only which willingly and wittingly, or else through negligence, shall have despised Circumcision. Yea rather it is certain, that they who lived so long uncircumcised in the Wilderness, josuah. 5. 4: yet for all that went to the holy congregations, and were accounted Citizens of the common wealth of the jews: to wit, because that fell out not through contempt of Circumcision, but because it could not be commodiously ministered in the Wilderness. For it is not probable that Moses and Aaron would otherwise have neglected it. 147. Question. But thinkest thou that there is no consideration to be had of the age of those that are to be baptised? Answer. For as much as the profession of faith is required of those that are of the years of discretion, the more diligent that they shallbe in knowing the chief and principal points of Christian religion, the better, they shall provide for themselves. But the sooner that godly parents shall offer their children to be baptised the better they shall do: lest if it might be they should be deprived of this benefit. 148. Question. But yet the Male children of the Israelites were not circumcised before the eight day. Gen. 17. 12. Answer. Forsooth because there was another law that letted, pronouncing those to be unclean till the seventh day, that had touched a woman in child bed. levit. 12. 2. & 15. 19 149. Question. But it is evident that many put off Baptism long, so that even Gregory Nazianzen the son of a Bishop himself, came not to be baptised until he was even now fully grown, and come to ripe years. Answer. This also manifesteth as many other things do, the negligence of many Bishops, of us not in any case to be followed. Moreover Nazianzen himself doth sharply reprove even this same putting off of Baptism, in his oration upon holy Baptism, with whom notwithstanding I do not consent in this (as also I do not in certain other points comprehended in the same oration) because he persuadeth us to put off the Baptism of children to the space of three or four years, some at less or more, unless (sayeth he) that danger do enforce us, in which they might learn & answer some mystical thing. For that very Law of Circumcision showeth, that this is a most vain reason, which was given aswell as baptism for the sealing up of that covenant in Christ. 150. Question. But what time thinkest thou the fittest to administer Baptism? Answer. Here in a manner it is incredible to be spoken, how great confusion was brought into the Churches under the show of order, and specially into the Greek Churches. For it is certain, by the Acts of the Apostles, that at the beginning, baptism was ministered as occasion was offered: they for the most part which came unto Baptism being rather endued with Faith in Christ by miracle, then by any order of the institution. Afterwards as it specially appeareth by the second Defensory oration of justinus, the holy Ghost beginning to work by little and little by ordinary means, when the congregations were gathered together, baptism was ministered. Afterwards that all things might be done in order, instructors being ordained, two days were at the first by a certain custom, then by law, and at length as it were by a certain superstition appointed for the baptizing of those that were so instructed. Now at the length, it was brought to this pass, that it was in a manner counted a great trespass to baptise at any other time then at Easter and at Whitsuntide. Further under the colour of this order appointed, to the end that they that were catechised (such as were in the beginning all those that were to be baptized as well of the jews as of the Gentiles) should not be called every day, nor before a lawful profession: it is in a manner incredible to think what confusions were pulled into the church especially, for that cause because that whereas baptism in those same that were of the years of discretion, was the first entrance into the congregation of the Church, they could not precisely wait for the set time of Easter and Whitsuntide, but they must think themselves after a sort condemned, who in the mean season fell into the danger of death. And hereupon that, also ensued that they were bound too discharge an infinite number from those Laws, who also pretended other things. So crept in that same error to the absolute necessity of baptism, which opinion when it seemed to thrust down all men headlong into hell, a wise treacle was given of some, devising a certain place, in which they should be placed which were dead without baptism through no fault of their own, neither should they feel indeed those everlasting pains, neither be partakers of that heavenly blessedness, which also Nazianzen hath taught. I omit other infinite things which may rightly cause Christians being better learned too be ashamed, and were brought in; by the means of those things which at the first were appointed for order sake. Question. But what dost thou gather of these? Answer. That for as much as the condition of times at the least is altered in this, that now none that are of the years of discretion are baptized, and the inconveniences of those same old Canons are evident enough, that those same Churches do very well, which so take order for the use of baptism, that neither infants, (as much as may be) be deprived of Baptism, not that their superstition be nourished which tie salvation unto Baptism, neither if it be possible that Baptism be separated from the daily preaching of the word. 151. Question. But dost thou think that nothing ought to be determined concerning the place? Answer. Yea, seeing all things must be done in the Church comely and in order: And forasmuch as Baptism is a part of the ministry of the Gospel, I think that one and the fame place is too be used both for the word and Sacraments, so as Baptism be ministered in the public congregation of the Church and with common prayer, neither will I rashly admit those, I cannot tell what, cases of necessity, that some allege to the contrary. Question. But what dost thou think concerning the rites themselves? Answer. I think that we ought to stand too the word of God. Question. But it seemeth that the word of God requireth a thorough dipping into the water. Answer. I grant that the name itself of baptism being taken in the precise and strait signification doth declare no less: neither is it any marvel that this was observed in those of the years of discretion, especially in jewrie and those same hot countries in which it might be done without any danger of health. But I think that we must look unto the very end of baptism itself, which it is plain also that we keep in the simple sprinkling of water upon the infants wet therewith, like as sprinkling was sufficient in those same purifications of the law (in which also our baptism was shadowed: neither ought we greatly to strive, whether with little or much water the whole body be dipped in, or the head only sprinkled. Question. What thinkest thou of that same threefold dipping? Answer. It appeareth out of Tertullian that this was then received against the unity of persons. But howsoever it be, why may we not aswell use one dipping alone, that it may be signified that we indeed are baptised into three persons (as by the words of Baptism itself is understood) but yet notwithstanding into one God? For it is as dangerous to multiply the essence, as to appoint one only person. But generally I think we ought not to strive, either of one or of threefold dipping or sprinkling: which also seemed unto Gregory Bishop of Rome in his first book, Epistle 41. 26. 153. Question. But here again, there is another thing that I would learn of thee, whether thou think that this form, I baptize thee in the name, or into the name of the Father, the Son, & the holy Ghost, be precisely and in so many words and syllables necessarily to be used. For thou art not ignorant that the Grecians say, let the servant of Christ be baptised into the name of the Father? Answer. I say here omitting the quiddities and subtleties of the schoolmen, that two extremes are diligently to be shunned of us: to wit, that we neither fall into the impiety of Magicians, who feign a certain virtue in some certain words, forasmuch (as we have said before) as words in themselves, have nothing else but the force of signification: neither let us think likewise that it is lawful for us in the institution of the Lord (so as it is prescribed of him in certain words) to change any thing at all. And now in very deed concerning that first point, if there had been any power and virtue in the letters & sounds of the syllables themselves, the Apostles must always have used the Syriach tongue, forasmuch as it is plain, that our Lord jesus Christ spoke in the same tongue. Therefore he changeth nothing in the matter itself, which speaketh the same thing which Christ himself hath instituted in that language, that they use that are to be baptised. Yea he that doth otherwise (as at this day is done in that counterfeit Church of Rome) he doth evil, because the Lord will that those things be spoken with understanding to his, which he would have to be believed and done of all. 154. Question. I beseech thee therefore, if the baptizer use a strange tongue not understood of any, whether is the baptism ratified or no? Answer. The efficacy or virtue of Baptism doth not depend of the Baptizer, so that he (as I have said) want not a vocation although it be faulty. And seeing that Infants have as much intelligence (if thou speak in a strange tongue, as if thou shouldest speak in thine own language) of the fruits of Baptism which belongeth unto them, which afterwards are come to their groweth, do depend upon preaching and Faith, which do succeed in their tyme. But the calling upon the name of the Lord in others can not be in vain, although it be wonderfully defiled by their fault who preaching the word, or administering the Sacrament in the Church, use a strange tongue. 155. Question. Is the Minister therefore precisely bound to use the form commanded by Christ, the words only altered by the sound of an other tongue? Answer. Surely there can fall out no just cause that may excuse any change in so few words, wherein that same whole & perfect mystery of the divinity is declared. Question. What therefore if any man should say indeed of the Father, begetter: for, the Son begotten: for the holy Ghost, proceeding? What if in steed of three distinct persons he should call upon the Trinity? Answer. To what purpose I pray thee are these things, the Lord hath commanded in this mystery, that we should not call upon the personal proprieties, but upon the persons themselves, and that upon them distinctly. I will therefore never admit any affectate or devised form, in steed of that which is lawful. Question. Much less then wouldst thou admit the taking out of any person, or any heretical addition, as if any man should say the Father greater, the Son lesser, or the holy Ghost only proceeding from the Father. Answer. Thou thinkest rightly. For neither were this the Baptism of the Church of Christ. 156. Question. But what thinkest thou of these same speeches, I baptize thee: or by the servant of Christ be baptized. Answer. Christ hath not prescribed unto his Ministers what or how many words they should use in the function of his ministry, but he hath defined the act itself, when he commandeth them to baptize into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Therefore they neither add nor diminish from the word of God, but satisfy their office: when they expound the institution of our Lord itself unto the bearers. And when they be come unto the actual form itself (as I may say) of the administration, whether they say, I baptize thee: or whether, let the servant of Christ be baptised, it maketh no matter, so that the form of the action itself which they exercise be kept. But notwithstanding that I may speak plainly as the matter is, the form kept in the Latin Churches seemeth unto me to come more nearly to the commandment of the Lord, and to be more fit to confirm the faith of him which is to be baptised. Question. Why so? Answer. Because the Minister speaking of himself, when he sayeth in the first person: I baptize, and then addeth the pronoun, thee, doth make the mind of him which is to be baptised more attentive, aswell to mark the outward action as though GOD himself were present, doing the self same thing by himself, which the Minister witnesseth by his word: as also too apply the the promise unto himself properly and peculiarly. 157. Question. But the child which is baptized, understandeth none of these things. Answer. I grant it, but he shall understand it in his time: because, as I said before, the virtue of these words through out the whole life of them, that are baptised, showeth his power in all temptations, so that we being at the very point of death may and ought even with this only buckler beat back all those later temptations of Satan, Avaunt Satan for when I was yet deaf I heard one that said unto me, in the name and by the commandment of my Saviour, I baptize thee N. in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. This same baptism is unto me a sure pledge that I am cleansed from all my sins, and endued with the righteousness of my Christ, together with whom I dying and being buried, I have now begun to arise again in my mind and shall fully at the length also rise again in my flesh to everlasting life. 158. Question. But forasmuch as we sin every moment, and our sins are washed away by baptism, how cometh it to pass that baptism is not often ministered to one especially seeing we minister the Supper of the Lord oftentimes. Answer. It is enough that we are once regenerated and entered into the Church from whence none that is elect is cast out. But to be fed once in the Church sufficeth not. 159. Question. Yea, but do not sins shut us out of the kingdom of God? Answer. No not so. For so none should remain in the Church, forasmuch as every one is a liar that saith, he hath no sin. Oursinnes therefore indeed, yea our least sins deserve a shutting out from the kingdom of God: but to the elect enjoying the favour of GOD, they are not imputed. Therefore Saint Paul said not Rom. 8. 1 that there is no sin, but that there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ jesus. Question. Let us therefore sin, that grace may abound. Answer. Yea but Christian faith can by no means admit this. For it believeth nothing but that the word of promise offereth. Now there is no promise of pardon, but to those that repent and amend, and none are further of from repentance and amendment than they that wittingly abuse the patience of GOD to sin. Therefore the gift of true repentance is also properly belonging to the elect. 160. Question. But what wilt thou say of those that are excommunicated? For the lawful judgements of the Church by the word of Christ done in the earth are ratified in the heavens. Matth. 18. 18. Now they that are excommunicated are cast out of the midst of the Church. 1. Cor. 5. 1. and therefore out of the kingdom of God. Answer. No man can more doubt that the judgement of lawful excommunication is ratified in the heavens, then if the Son of GOD himself should pronounce the sentence, forasmuch as the Church doth that which it doth in his name. Yet notwithstanding thou gainest not that thou strivest for. For neither the excommunicate persons are simply too be compared too branches, now once simply cut of from the Vine, but too unfruitful branches which draw not juice out of the Vine, and therefore at length too be cut off from GOD, unless they shortly sprowte again which appeareth by the fruits of repentance, even like as it falleth out too bows, which in the Winter time be as they were dead, and yet notwithstanding in the spring time receive their former hew and liveliness again. For those same gifts of God are without repentance. Now if so be any continue unto the last in their stubborness, it is a token that they were indeed for a time outwardly in the church, but they were never of the Church. For they had abidden with us (saith Saint john) or at least after their error they had returned 1. john. 2. 14. unto us again, if they had been of us. 161. Question. But now if Baptism be therefore not to be often ministered to one, because the first entrance into the Church cannot be frustrate, why in like manner sufficeth it not once too have received the Supper, forasmuch as he that is truly once incorporated into the body of Christ, can never altogether fall out of it? Answer. We have told the cause already. For it is enough once to be borne again, but not to be once nourished: because as in this corporal life we must oftentimes take meat, by the juice whereof we may be nourished: so being incorporated into Christ, that we may more and more be quickened in him, the often sealing of that incorporation, and as it were the nourishing of faith is profitable. Notwithstanding these things in this similitude are altogether diverse, because this meat is corruptible which we use to the upholding of this life, and therefore after the old, another new always succeed: but the inward meat which is given in the holy supper, is incorruptible, and therefore when the Supper is often used, neither is new meat received, nor that same first meat as it were before rejected received again, but the same meat which we had taken before, is more and more as it were engrafted in us, and by faith are strengthened, that so much the more effectually we may be nourished with that, (that is too say, with Christ, to everlasting life. 162. Question. This be spoken hitherto of baptism. Now let us come too the other Sacrament of the Christian Church. How shall we call that? Answer. Paul calleth it the Supper of our Lord. 1. Cor. 11 20. because that at the first it was celebrated towards the Evening by the Lord, which also was a long time observed in the Christian Church. He likewise calleth it the Table of the Lord. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 163. Question. And is it not otherwise called of the ancient fathers? Answer. Therefore also let us way these names. Certain men do in this argument reckon up the names of the Liturgy or service, of the Synaxis or the gathering together of the people, & of Agape the feasts of love, but in my judge meant, not rightly enough. For by those two former names are signified not only those mysteries, but also those other parts of the public worship of God. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as all that are not utterly ignorant of the Greek tongue know, is the self same that to execute any public ministry is, which afterward is drawn to all ecclesiastical functions, like as the Apostle also calleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the servant of jesus Christ, & his office he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Question. Thou art not ignorant that the old Latin interpreter. Acts 13. 2. hath turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrificing Answer. I know it it very well, and in very deed he hath done it very foolishly, unless we will also make the Angels, Sacrificers, as they that are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministering spirits. Heb. 1. 14. and Magistrates. Rom. 13. 4. Question. But yet so it seemeth too be taken. Luke. 1. 23. Heb. 10. 11. Answer. Nay rather there also it is taken for the whole office of the Priesthood. The name also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is too say a meeting together, is larger, although it were at length translated, too that same principal part thereof, too wit, too signify the lords supper. Now they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those same common holy banquets and whatsoever was done in them, as Tertullian declareth at large, in his defence. Jude also useth the same name. Jude the twelfth verse: the name being taken from hence, because than they used certain choice, dainties and junkets, and also because Christians did so testify their mutual Love and most near conjunction. 164. Question. But what thinkest thou of the name of Eucharist or thanksgiving. Answer. The Supper of the Lord was so called, not in respect that it was a Sacrament, but as it was a Sacrifice. 165. Question. Therefore with thee, the Supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice. Answer. It is so indeed, And that in a threefold respect: first in this respect that we offer some thing to God in the same, to wit, that same solemn giving of thanks, by that commandment of Christ, As oft as ye shall do these things, ye shall show forth the lords death. By which reason the Supper of the Lord may be said to succeed in the place of all those Sacrifices which they called peace offerings. Moreover because the alms were bestowed in it, peradventure by the ordinance of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 16. 2. the which alms were called Prospherai or Oblations out of that sentence of Christ, that which you shall do to the least of these, you do it unto me. Thirdly because it doth as it were renew that same sacrifice, of the Lords death, after a certain sort set before our eyes in those mysteries. Neither is it otherwise to be expounded whatsoever is read of that sacrifice and unbloody oblation of Christ in the old and more pure fathers, as well the Greeks as Latin. Question Dost thou not think therefore, that Christ is offered again unto his Father, of the Priest in very deed for the quick and the dead. Answer. Out upon that blasphemy the most execrable of all that ever were. 166. Question. But what thinkest thou of the name of the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer. It is certain that there was some kind of altar set in a convenient place, whether the gifts and offerings were carried, (as also now the Pope's Canon hath) out of which were taken bread & wine, which were appointed to the holy mysteries. And this was the Ambrie as it were of these Love feasts, by the example of Christ. And the Minister was wont to stand at that place blessing the bread and wine. But here see together with me the craft of Satan. For there is no doubt but using the occasion of this Altar he transfonrmed the Sacrament into a Sacrifice, and that Propitiatory. But in the writings of the Apostles there is no mention of an Altar, but only of the lords Table. Of so grease weight is it, not too bring any thing rashly, no vee it never so indifferent, into the Church. 167. Question. And what thinkest thou concerning the Mass? Answer. Of the thing itself, that is to say, of the impiety thereof, such as the like was never, we will speak in his proper place. Now I say that the word is altogether barbarous. For the Ancient Latins, too whom that word was proper, said not Missam but Missas. For I can also show Romanum capitulare thee, an old romish grail as they call it, in which they say in the plural number and in the Neuter Gender Missa. Neither can that word signify any other thing, than things sent, to wit, Oblations which every man brought in their meeting. For concerning that certain men have written of the sending away of the company, and much more some have made much ado about the Etymology of the Hebrew word, it seemeth too me altogether absurd. 168. Question. Concerning the names themselves, sufficiently is said. Now I pray thee define unto me the Supper itself. Answer. Then I define the Supper of the Lord, to be an holy action, commanded of Christ to all the faithful of ripe years, too continue in the Church too the end of the world, in which by a fit Analogy and proportion of Elements and Ceremonies, the memory aswell of his death is lively set before us, as also our incorporation into him through faith, is spiritually sealed, and our mutual conjunction in him ratified. Finally a solemn giving of thanks is paid unto him. Question. I would gladly then have this definition particularly declared unto me. Answer. Why I say it too be an holy action, thou hast known before in the definition of a Sacrament: If thou demand of the rest, I will answer thee in order. 169. Question. I have understood also before why thou sayest it was commanded of Christ to continue to the end of the world, or till he come again, as he himself speaketh. But why dost thou add [unto the faithful that are of ripe years? Answer. Because that forasmuch as the examining of a man's own self by the Apostolical doctrine is required, we must needs determine that they are to be shut out, who neither can prove themselves, neither are able to make confession of their faith which they might examine. Question. Wilt thou therefore have children made men, and finally, those which are not taught in Christian religion, shut out? Answer. What else: And therefore the supper of the Lord to be profaned of those which minister it to Infants. Question. And yet to the eating of the paschal Lamb, in whose place succeeded the Supper of the Lord, children also were admitted. Answer. I grant it. But they were of that age, that they could ask their Fathers, and might be taught of them, as is plain. Exod. 12. 26. 170. Question. Why didst thou add [in the Church? Answer. That thou mightest know that it is not a private, but a common action, that is to say, an action in the congregation, either of some whole church, or of some particular, finally not to be celebrated of any one privately but in common, whereof we shall speak afterwards, when we shall dispute against the abuses of the holy Supper. 171. Question. What callest thou the elements? Answer. That same bread & that wine. 172. Question. Why dost thou add that same bread and that wine? Answer. That I may distinguish holy things from common things. For so also Paul speaketh. 1. Cor. 11. 16. 17. Question. But in what thing consisteth this difference? Answer. Not in the substance but in the quality and use. For common bread & common wine are set before us, that they may nourish this life: but that same bread and that same wine, are therefore given us, that they might be both signs & seals of the communicating of that body, given for us, and of the blood shed for us, and that into everlasting life. 173. Question. And what are those same rites belonging unto the Sacrament? Answer. Touching that that belongeth unto the minister, to bless, too break, too power out, to give: concerning that, that belongeth to the guests, too take too eat, to drink. 174. Question. And what is signified aswell by these elements, as by those ceremonies sacramentally? Answer. Surely that bread is the sacramental sign of that body given for us, and that wine of that blood shed for us: finally, both two of whole Christ, as of our ever lasting meat. The blessing was appointed not so much to signify some mystery, as partly to confirm those which came to the lords Table, partly to perfect that same Sacrament, and partly to celebrate some solemn action of thanks giving. Of which matter it shall be meet to entreat apart. Now the breaking of the bread is a sign of the passion of Christ. 175. Question. Whence dost thou gather this? For there are which refer this specially to the use of unleavened or sweet breads, which it is manifest was not very thick, and for the cutting whereof there needed no knife. Moreover they say also, that to break bread, by the Hebrew phrase signifieth as much as to distribute & plentifully to give bread. Answer. 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 & commanded to be done. For it is written, he broke, he gave, whereby there can not be (understood by the name of breaking, the distribution of bread. Now I grant that some other, and I add further, that householders were wont, yea, besides the use of unleavened bread, to break bread to the use of their household. But the Apostle manifestly showeth that this rite albeit it was common, yet it became sacramental, and that by reason of those same mentioned punishments which the lord suffered for our cause, for so much as he wrote, in steed of these words, that is given, that is broken. 176. Question. Yea, but one bone was not broken in him. Answer. I grant it: but yet verily he was torn and rend both with the torments of mind and body, and there is nothing more usual in the word of God, than this Metaphor, whereby it is also said, that the heart is bruised & broken. Now this giving, or outward offering of the signs is to be taken, as if Christ himself should give himself unto us with his own hand, to be used and enjoyed, and should insinuate himself wholly unto us, which thing also in very deed he performeth inwardly by the power of his holy spirit, unless that our unbelief hinder it. Now the outward receiving, whereby we lay hold upon the elements as with the hand, it answereth the inward receiving by faith, that betwixt us and Christ there may be perfected and concluded as it were a certain bargain, Christ demanding, Wilt thou receive me inwardly by faith, even as I do outwardly deliver thee, these same seals of my promise by my minister into thy hands? And faith answering, I will Lord, and by faith I receive thee, even as this hand receiveth these seals given unto it. Now the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that wine, declareth the applying of Christ laid hold upon by faith, whereby it is brought to pass, that being truly made partakers of him, we more and more draw out of him whatsoever belongeth to our salvation. 177. Question. But what is the proportion and the analogy of these signs with the things signified? Answer. This analogy or proportion is manifest in itself. For seeing that breadeand wine is most fit above other meats, for the nourishing of our bodies, they do most fitly set forth him unto us in whom only everlasting life resteth. But the breaking of bread and the pouring forth of wine, doth as it were set before our eyes those infinite torments that the Lord suffered for our sakes, that we might in a manner look upon him with our very eyes hanging bloody upon the Cross, and instilling into us out of his pierced side everlasting life. Hitherto belongeth that same saying. De consec dist. 2. When the offering is taken, whiles the blood is poured out of the cup into the mouths of the faithful, what other thing is set forth than the offering up of the Lords body upon the cross, and the pouring forth of his blood from his side? Finally the eating and drinking doth so expressly and in a manner so lively declare as it were our transformation into Christ himself, and his insinuation again into us, whereby he himself liveth in us, and we again in him, that nothing can be more evident. For what can be more nearly joined unto us, then that which we eat and drink, as that which is transformed & changed into ourselves? 178. Question. But yet thou hast said nothing of our mutual consociation into one body. Answer. That also appeareth by the whole ceremony. For seeing that we take one and the self same meat from one and the self same table, we profess that we are of one and the self same Household, and we promise each too others our mutual helps by this solemn ceremony. Hitherto also belongeth that same analogy and proportion of bread & wine, made of many grains into one body, which lively setteth as it were before our eyes our mutual knitting and growing up together as members under one head. Wherefore also Augustine calleth this mystery the bond of love, which is expounded plainly by the Apostle. 1. Cor. 10. 17. 179. Question. But why are there two Elements given in the Supper, and but one in Baptism? Answer. Because Christ in Baptism is set forth unto us as a Laver, & water also only sufficeth to wash away filthiness. But in the Lord's supper, forasmuch as Christ is set forth unto us as that heavenly nourishment, and this life needeth not only eating, but also drinking, not without cause not only bread but also wine is given in the supper of the Lord, that we might know that we ought to seek our whole life in Christ alone. 180. Question. Dost thou therefore think the use of that wine to be as necessary as the use of that bread? Answer. What else? And therefore that the use of the Cup was taken from Christians not without the instinct of Satan. Of which matter we will speak in the refutation of abuses. 181. Question. But what dost thou think of taking the Sacrament with the hand, which also the Romish Church took away? Answer. Albeit I will not say, that the taking or touching with the hand is so precisely necessary, as the other Sacramental rites (for he also receiveth that receiveth with his mouth) yet notwithstanding, I think that this also aught to be restored in the Church. For it is more plain than that it can be denied, that the ancient & Apostolical Church did the same: and it is plain, that this same thrusting of the bread into the mouth sprang first from a certain preposterous and altogether superstitious reverence of the Sacraments, as though men were unworthy to handle the holy Elements, when as notwithstanding the mouth is more impure than the hand. To be short there, is no man but seethe, unless it be he which hath no eyes, from whence this superstition cometh, that same doting dream of transubstantiation once being received. 182. Question. Then thou much less allowest the taking away, of the breaking of bread. Answer. Thou thinkest rightly. For this being taken away, the proportion or the analogy of the death of Christ is taken away, as we have showed before. 183. Question. To conclude them, what thinkest thou of that, that eating is changed into adoration, caring about, & finally into an oblation for the quick & the dead? Answer. Surely that Satan hath even passed himself by bringing this impiety, seeing that there was never any such gross idolatry heard of, no not amongst the most profane Gentiles. 184. Question. Go to then, let us speak of the blessing or consecration. Answer. Why, thou hast already showed what this thing is: forasmuch as by the name of consecration is understood blessing. Question. So then I suppose that thou callest it, that which the divines also call sanctification, that is to say, a translation from a common use to a holy worship of God. But against this interpretation there are certain stops. For the Evangelists do use in this self same argument of the supper, two Greek words commonly and indifferently one for another, the one to bless, the other to give thanks. Now that these do differ within themselves it may specially appear by this, that to bless, is always taken transitively, but to give thanks, always intransitively. Moreover also that same common sanctification, to wit whereby it is brought to pass, that we may lawfully use meats, is manifestly distinguished, from thanks giving and prayers, as the consequent from the antecedent. Answer. It is an usual thing with the Hebrews, whose phrase the writings of the Apostles do savour of, to understand the consequent by the antecedent, therefore to give thanks, albeit it be always set down absolutely, yet notwithstanding it is taken in this argument, for to sanctify with thanks giving: and again this action of thanks giving is spoken generally of prayers, the Apostle using the name of intercession, though in an unequal thing, yet not altogether unlike. So also to bless, when it is attributed to God, is taken for too sanctify, Moses himself being interpreter. Gen. 2. verse 3. Question. But that Christ in the history of the holy Supper, speaketh as a Mediator & as man, hereby it appeareth, that the Evangelists, as I have said, use this word, to give thanks, indifferently, which by no means can be attributed to God. Answer. Thou thinkest rightly. Therefore there is no doubt, but that in Paul 1. Cor. 10. 16. that which we bless, Oecumenius hath interpreted out of the Hebrew phrase and manner of speech, That which we prepare by blessing. Now blessing is referred partly to God and partly to the Elements themselves, as it is first instituted of Christ in this matter, as he who after his manner first blessed God his father, that is to say, gave him thanks. In which respect also this mystery may be called a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and therewithal that the son as the Lord of his father's household might sanctify the elements taken, that they might not be that which they were by nature, but might begin to be that sacramentally, to which aswell in signifying as in giving and sealing they were by his will appointed: so as also they might take the very names of the things signified, as if they were the same thing that sacramentally they signified. Now that which was then first instituted and done of him, as it is performed by his commandment, so also it is performed by his power, as of him who hath said, do this. 185. Question. But of this blessing there is no certain form prescribed, specially concerning the action of giving of thanks. Answer. I grant it. Therefore it was free for the Churches to prescribe a form of so many and so great benefits as was thought expedient: so that in the very substance of the matters they went not any whit from the written word. And hereupon not only that Canon, which they called the Greek and Latin Canon, but also those manifold liturgies or forms of prayer, called by that name were increased, interlined and corrupted by little and little, that not only they became the very sink of all superstition but also of all ungodliness. 186. Question. But is there not also some kind of form prescribed of the Sacramental benediction? Answer. Yes certes, it is prescribed in plain words of the three Evangelists and of Paul. Question. But why rather of this then of that? Answer. Because it only belongeth unto Christ, to constitute and appoint Sacraments, by prescript words of himself, least whiles we vary from the words, we also stray from his will. Now it was not needful to prescribe certain set words which we should use in the expounding of his institution, in prayer & in giving of thanks. Therefore it ought to suffice us to have those things prescribed, according to the rule whereof, we ought to require those of ours. 187. Question. And what is that same Sacramental form? Answer. Even the same that is prescribed of the three Evangelists and of saint Paul. 188. Question. And yet these do somewhat vary amongst themselves in words. Answer. But in the matter itself they vary not any whit at all, therefore it skilleth not which of these thou follow. But this same little variety in words showeth that we must not stick in the syllables themselves (which is altogether magical) but we must mark the signification of the words: Neither for all that, is it lawful for us to go any whit from the prescript words. 189. Question. Thinkest thou not then these words are working and effectual words? Answer. No indeed, if thou call them working words wherein there should be some working force too work some secret thing effectually. For that which I had said before, now I say again, that there is no other use of those words then to declare his mind that speaketh. But if thou call them working works whereby is declared both what is done of the Pastor, and what ought to be done of the flock, and also what God himself doth, than I will say that they are all working words. For those words, He took, he broke, and gave to his disciples, show what Pastors ought to do. Again those words, take ye, eat ye, drink ye, show what the flock ought todoe. For it followeth Do you this. Finally those words This is my body which is given for you, and this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you, signify what himself worketh and perfourmethin the minds of the hearers, in this action by his own power alone. For neither are these things rehearsed in that action of the minister of the word historically: but that all may understand that then these things are done, which our Lord commanded to be done. 190. Question. Wilt thou therefore that the institution of our Lord be plainly rehearsed? Answer. Yea, not only plainly, but in that tongue also, which may be understood of the Hearers, aswell adding the exposition thereof, as also exhortation, that the minister be no let, but that every man may perceive that which is done there himself. For why are all those things said, unless it be that they may be understood of all the comers unto it: And why must they be understood, unless being understood they may be believed: For this cause the Apostle requireth that every one examine himself. 191. Question. But in what things consisteth this same proving of a man's self? Answer. First in the knowledge of Christian doctrine, & especially of this mystery, than the full persuasion of faith, thirdly to be short in true repentance. 192. Question But who hath these things, Answer. Whosoever is truly a Christian, forasmuch as these are the effects of the spirit of adoption. But it is one thing to have these things truly; another too have them in every thing perfect. Yea if these things were perfect in us, we should neither need the word nor the Sacraments: seeing that we use them, too the end that they being begun in us, might be daily increased. 193. Question. I have heard what thou hast said aught to be done, aswell of the Minister himself, as of those which come to the lords table. I ask thee therefore, seeing that the formal cause itself of the Sacraments dependeth of the use of the institution of our Lord, if any fault be in them whether for that cause, the making of the Sacrament be hindered. Let us see this therefore by parts. The Benediction is principally put in the faithful rehearsal of the institution of the Lord, & as I may say in a certain applying of the same unto the signs, moreover in the exposition thereof, adding exhortations and all other things, whereby every one may be stirred up to the understanding and lawful use of these mysteries. Therefore the overpassing or rather perverting of this institution, doth so corrupt the act, that it neither can nor aught to be deemed the lords Supper. But other things not done so rightly (no, not if there be a false exposition used) do not yet corrupt the action, as which wholly dependeth upon the will and institution of the Lord. 194. Question. But what thinkest thou now of the breaking of the bread? Answer. I think that the overpassing of that, doth not corrupt the act itself, because it pertaineth not too the very making of the Sacrament, but only belongeth too the true and altogether lawful use thereof: as a spot in a fair face doth indeed hurt the beauty, but yet notwithstanding it doth not utterly abolish the form itself. 195. Question. And what thinkest thou of the giving of the Sacrament? Answer. Surely that the overpassing of the Sacrament itself doth make, that that which was a Sacrament doth cease too have the reason of a Sacrament, forasmuch as the Sacraments were instituted to be used: like as wax sealed with a common seal doth differ very much from private Wax and not sealed: but unless it be applied unto an instrument it is accounted as private Wax. 196. Question. What thinkest thou of taking, eating and drinking? Answer. Even the very same. 197. Question. But what if there be any fault in the person of him that maketh the Sacrament? Answer. Surely this, that if he be a mere Private person the whole action is in vain, as we have said in Baptism, but if he sit in the chair of the ministery, albeit he be unlawfully called, if he keep the institution of the Lord, we must think otherwise, as before we have answered concerning Baptism For the reason is one and the like of both in this behalf. Question. What if he teach falsely, or overflow with vices, or thinketh or believeth nothing less than that he doth, is it therefore no Sacrament? Answer. No, not so. Whatsoever the Sophister's babble of the intention (as they speak) of him that consecrateth. For the making and perfecting of the Sacrament dependeth wholly upon the institution of God, by whatsoever Minister he doth it. 198. Question. Dost thou think the like of their fault, or of any unworthiness of those which do come unto the Lord's Table? Answer. Yea altogether like. And by these it is easy to understand what corruptions have been brought into the Church of God, substituting in the place of the true blessing, a magical mumbling: in the place of giving and receiving, an oblation for the quick and the dead: breaking of bread being altogether taken away, and giving of thanks changed into that same horrible carrying about and worshipping of a most profane piece of bread, whereof we will speak in their proper place. 199. Question. Therefore unworthy Ministers do also minister the whole sacrament. Answer. I grant it. Question. Therefore they also that come unworthily, do receive the whole Sacrament, seeing they receive that that is ministered. Answer. I have oftentimes greatly marveled at the efficacy of the spirit of error in this plain Sophistical conclusion. But one error hath brought forth an other. For this being granted, that both two, that is to say, aswell the Elements as the thing signified, that is, that Christ is given with his gifts to the body and too all, they have concluded, that he that receiveth the Elements, receiveth also the thing. But this ground of theirs is most false. For neither the matter of the Sacrament (that is to say, Christ himself) is offered to the hands and to the mouth, but to the mind and faith, to wit too be laid hold upon spiritually as the bodily signs do witness to the outward senses. Question. What then dost thou determine concerning this matter? Answer. Forsooth, that the Elements are received of all, but the thing signified only of the faithful, albeit that both the Elements and the things signified are ministered to all. 200. Question. Thou saidest also in the beginning that the simple word doth consist in two things, to wit, in the words themselves and in the things signified by the words: and that there fore the Sacraments are so far off, from the simple and naked word, that they also are set before our eyes, & therefore are called of Augustine [visible words.] And therefore it may be, yea that the most wicked do understand aswell the outward word itself, as the things signified by it, to wit, this by the sound, but those by the understanding. Why therefore dost thou not think the like also in the Sacraments: too wit, that both the Sacraments and the thing signified: the Bread and the Wine, yea, and Christ too be received of all: of some too wit, of of the believers too life, but of others, too wit, of the unworthy, to damnation? Answer. First, that which thou sayest, too wit, that of whomsoever the outward word is heard, that they should also perceive that which is signified by it, thou knowest is not always true. For it hath no place in them, who speaking in a strange tongue, so hear that they do not understand, which falleth out to most men under the papacy. Yea how many do hear those that speak unto them in a known tongue, who yet notwithstanding understand not the very meaning of those things that are spoken: For therefore we go to schools, and to Schoolmasters, not only too learn the tongues, but especially that we may understand in deed those things, whose sounds we perceive well enough. Now this thing is much more to be acknowledged in divine then in common matters, and by their own nature more agreeable to this our understanding. But go to let us grant that that in the simple word and in the Sacrament, there is heard and also understood of all that which is signified by both: yet for all that I will not grant, that the thing signified, that is to say, Christ, is received of any others then of those that receive him worthily, that is to say, that come unto him with faith. For this receiving, which by a Sacramental figure (as we have said before) in the words of eating & drinking is signified, & by the effect is called of the Apostle the communion or spiritual union, doth not only respect the hearing of our ears nor our understanding only, but declareth that which is the only property of faith alone, to wit the spiritual application of Christ himself. 201. Question. Is not this the self same thing that some say, to wit that aswell the bread & the wine, as also the very body of Christ and his blood is received both of worthy and unworthy, but that the fruit of Christ is only received of them which are endued with faith? Answer. No not so, the which I shall easily show thee by a fit similitude. For let us put the case that there is not only declared by words to some sick man of some learned Physician in an unkowne tongue, but also in very deed some such medicines set forth which are required to the curing of him, and that the sick man doth neither understand what the Physician sayeth, nor what is offered unto him. And the Physician hath done his part, who notwithstanding hath done that he hath done in vain. Such are they who come altogether unworthy too the lords Table, being altogether ignorant of those things that are there said and ministered, too whom nevertheless the whole Sacraments are set forth. Yea let us put the case in the second place, that the sick man in deed heareth what the Physician sayeth, yet understandeth not the meaning of his sayings, either because he is not attentive, or else because he is not skilful of those things whereof he heareth the Physician entreating. Such are they also who come themselves unworthily too the lords table, too wit, with a mind not rightly prepared to understand those things which are done there. Let us further put the case that the sick man doth well understand both his Speeches, and whatsoever the Physician giveth him, but yet notwithstanding despiseth the things he hath both heard and well understood. Now I demand of thee, whether thou canst rightly say, that such time of sick men, either of the first or second or third sort do receive the medicines that are offered them? Question. No not so. For the first sort neither receive the word nor the things, the other only understand the word, finally the third sort though they understand both, yet in very deed they neglect both the word and the things. Answer. Thou thinkest rightly. For it is one thing too understand that which is said, another to apply that to thyself which thou understandest, This Physician of whom I speak is he that rightly administereth the Sacraments: the Elements, and Sacramental Ceremonies rightly set forth, is the talk of this Physician: The medicine that is offered is Christ himself with his gifts, the only remedy against death only to be applied unto us by the iustrument of faith as all the scripture witnesseth. hereupon gather how greatly they are deceived which deceive both themselves and others, who reason so that they say, when the whole sacraments, that is, as well the signs as the very body and blood of Christ himself, are ministered to all comers, that it is also received of all, albeit the fruits of the Sacrament are received of the faithful alone, as though forsooth Christ could otherwise be received then to everlasting life. 202. Question. Yea, but doth not Christ also judge, as he doth save? that is to say, is he not set forth aswell to judgement of unbelievers, as for the salvation of believers? Answer. Yes verily. But being received, he saveth: but being neglected, he judgeth. Therefore it is not truly said, that he is received of some to life, but of other some to death, albeit indeed he be the saviour of life unto some, to wit, to them, of whom he is received by faith: but to other some a savour of death, to wit, too them of whom he is not received. For death is not of Christ, who is always life, but of the contempt of Christ. 203. Question. I pray thee let us come at the length too that of whose exposition this controversy seemeth chiefly to depend, to wit to the very true and native exposition of the words of the institution. Answer. And which dost thou think too be that same institution? Question. Too wit, this is my body that is given for you, and this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many, for the forgiveness of sins. Answer. But I say, that the institution doth comprehend not only what is given: But also what is prescribed, both too the minister and too those which come to these mysteries. For all these things must concur in this action. Question. That I may admit this, yet notwithstanding I think that there is controversy about these which I have rehearsed. Answer. Yea, and of others also. For thou knowest that there is question also what is broken: and the word do you, is taken of some for sacrifice you, and again for, make you the body & blood of Christ of bread, as of late, Santesius was not ashamed to write. But God willing we will weigh all these things in their proper place. 204. Question. Now I pray thee proceed to the expounding of those things which I have spoken of: and first of all, say thou, how thou thinkest that same This is my body, is to be interpreted. Answer. I say, that this same proposition doth consist of a subject a Predicate and a coupling Verb (as they speak in Schools.) The subject is declared by the pronoun, This, they attribute by the term of the Body, the copulative is the verb substantive is. 205. Question. But what is the subject? Answer. Too wit the same that Christ reached forth, taken and broken, to wit, that same bread as the Evangelists do express. Therefore the word This, can declare nothing else but This Bread, too wit, the element of this action. 206. Question. Now what is the attribute? Answer. That same veryt body of Christ given, and that same blood shed for us. And therefore those same determinations are added that is is given: and that is shed. 207. Question. And how are these so joined together, that the one may be said of the other? Answer. To wit, this is the nature of things which be desperate or sundry, that when they altogether disagree in kind, the one can not properly be said of the other by no reason: because otherwise things should not be discerned from things by their specifical form. Therefore if thou take this proposition properly, it shall be no less false, that bread is the body of Christ, then that a gourd is a man. Therefore it must needs be a figurative speech. Question. But thou art not ignorant that the very letter is toughly maintained as well of the defenders of transubstantiation as of consubstantiation. Answer. So they say. But of them we shall say afterwards. Now it is enough for me to declare the doctrine of our Churches, and to show upon what reason it standeth until that we shall confute the contrary opinions. 208. Question. In what thing then placest thou the figure? what? in the Subject? Answer. No, not so. For that same true bread taken, broken, and given is properly showed in that pronoun. Question. What, only the bread? Answer. Yea, only. For as we shall say in his place, it is not meet here in any case to set the figure Synecdoche. This notwithstanding is true, that so is showed not simply common bread, but Sacramental bread, that is, bread appointed to a Sacramental use. 209. Question. What, dost thou place a figure in the predicate? Answer. I know that certain men do charge us so, and that not in one kind of slander. For some do accuse us as though we should here understand by the body of Christ, the Church: as though forsooth we should be so mad, not to mark that those words, which is given for you, can not be understood of the mystical body: or as though in the other member there should be meant some mystical blood. But others because we interpret the body the Sacrament or the sign of the body, by and by they conclude, that we make a double bodied Christ, or else that we attribute (I cannot tell what) fantastical body, of which notwithstanding God be thanked, neither of both is admitted of us. For we are so far of from that, that we should say that another then that true and only body of Christ given for us, is to be said of that bread, that we contrariwise contend that whole Christ God & man, is there denominated of another nature, to wit, the bodily, and that for that cause which we have showed before. 210. Question. But if the figure be neither in the Subject nor in the Predicate, it is no where. Answer. Thou gatherest not rightly. For thou omittest the third, that is to say, the copulative which knitteth the subject with the attribute. I say then that the figure is in the very kind of attribution, that is, that in very deed the true body and properly taken, is said also of the true bread properly taken, but figuratively, not properly. So if we say that Circumcision is the covenant: or the Sceptre is the kingdom, or that the paschal Lamb was Christ, it must needs be that the figure be placed neither in the Subject nor in the Attribute: but in the Copulative or kind of attribution. 211. Question. Why therefore do you interpret the body the Sacrament, or the sign or figure of the body? Answer. It is all one to say, that that bread is the body of Christ, but not properly, but not as it signifieth the same Sacramentally: and to say that the bread is not that body, but only the Sacrament of that body. Therefore that difference that our adversaries object here unto us, is most vain and foolish. That the fathers aswell Greeks as Latins, have spoken both ways, it is more often showed of our men, then that we ought so often to repeat their sayings. 212. Question. But now what manner of figure sayest thou that this is? Answer. I say that it is a Sacramental Metonymia, whereby is brought to pass, that the name of the thing Sacramentally signified, is given to the sign: or whereby the sign is said to be the thing itself, to the signifying whereof it is given: the which thing I have proved before by many like examples. Question. Why dost thou so often beat that same word [Sacramentally] into our heads? Answer. That I may always meet with that same shameful slander of theirs, who as often as they hear the name of sign and signification, they cry out that we make the Supper of the Lord of none effect, and as it were transform it into an idle picture. Understand therefore a Sacramental Metonymia to be that figure, whereby is brought to pass, that the sign is said to be that thing, for the signifying whereof it is so offered to the outward senses by a fit analogy and proportion, and by the will of God, that therewithal is offered to the understanding and to faith that same thing signified, to be received and sealed truly and in very deed. 213. Question. But it is hard that some thing should be said to be that, that only it signifieth to the mind. Answer. Nay rather as I have before taught, this same figurative kind of speaking is much more fit and express, and therefore also more usual, then if by proper speaking the signs should be said to signify some thing. For when they are said to be the thing itself that they signify, they altogether lead the mind of the beholder from the visible thing, to behold the invisible, and to lay hold upon it by Faith: which is the end of Sacraments. Question. Notwithstanding, I would have this confirmed unto me, by plain & evident reasons, to wit, that these propositions, This is my body etc. &. This is my blood. etc. are to be taken figuralively. Answer. I will do it, and that gladly. For what can be more acceptable unto me, than so to open this truth that all colour and sleight being removed, it may be seen of all men even as it is. Now I will so order my proofs that in the first place I will bring mine arguments from these very words of the institution, This is my body: and secondly of the reason which is taken from the affirmation of the Subject. Now that, that we shall say of the body, I would also to be understood of the blood. 214. Question. Now then, what is thy first argument? Answer. That which he took, broke, and reached, the Lord commanded to be taken and eaten. This same he said to be his body. But he took that very same bread, broke it and delivered it, etc. the Evangelists witnessing the same. Therefore he said, that that same bread was his body. But things that are unlike contrary in nature, can not be spoken properly of themselves. But bread and the body of Christ are things disagreeing by nature. Therefore they can not properly be said the one of the other. It remaineth therefore, that, forasmuch as this speech of Christ is true, it be understood figuratively. 215. Question. But what now is the other argument? Answer. In every proper and regular affirmation of the Subject, either the general word, or the word of property, or the word of accident is affirmed of the special: or the special of the singular, but the body of Christ is neither the general word, nor the word of difference, nor the word of property, nor the word of accident. nor the special in respect of the bread. Therefore it can by no manner of means be said of the bread. Notwithstanding it is said and that truly, when it is spoken of Christ. Therefore figuratively. 216. Question. Show also the third. Answer. If the body of Christ be spoken properly and regularly of this bread, than the things that agree to the body, agree to the bread, and contrariwise. But to be borne of the virgin Marie, to be hungry to die for us, to be crucified, to rise again etc., agree to the body of Christ, but not unto bread, And contrariwise to be sown, reaped, threshed, kneaded, & baked, agree in deed to bread: but by no means to the body, therefore by a regular and common usual manner of speech, the bread can not be said to be the body of Christ. 217. Question. Show the fourth. Answer. If that be a natural proposition, either the same is said of itself, or else not the same, but a contrary. But neither of both is true. Therefore it can not be a natural proposition, That the same can not be said of itself, it appeareth plainly by these reasons. First because in any identical proposition, that is, where the same thing is affirmed of the self same, the Subject & the predicate must not differ in the thing, but in the name only: as when I say a blade is a sword, as a target is a shield, the son of the virgin is Christ, but bread and the body of Christ are not words of the same signification, but things altogether divers: therefore they make not an identical Proposition. But if now An identical proposition is a proposition affirmative of itself. some froward person will have one and the same substance too be declared in these two words, first ye must show that neither bread ceaseth to be bread, nor the the body ceaseth to be a body. Furthermore in a proposition Identical, the subject and predicate are convertible, or standing one for an other. Therefore if this proposition were identical or one, the body of Christ might as truly be said to be baked in an Oven, as it is truly said that bread is the body given for us. Therefore it is not as the schoolmen speak, an identical proposition. Now again, that nothing divers, is herein naturally said, is thus proved by a necessary consequence. If the body as some thing divers should be regularly spoken of bread, surely either it should be spoken essentially, or as the cause, or as accidentary. We have showed in the second argument that it is not spoken essentially, as neither being unto bread as the general, or as the difference, nor as the special, in respect of the singular. Now it can much less be the causal affirmation. For neither hath a body the reason in respect of bread, of the efficient cause, nor of the end: but the inward causes, to wit, the matter and form are referred to the essential affirmation. Finally, it can not be any accidental affirmation, for as much as the body is no accident, yea and though it were, yet it can not be an accident to bread. It remaineth therefore, that by neither of both ways, that same can be, either a natural or a proper Proposition. 218. Question. Tell the fift. Answer. If that same bread were properly the body of Christ, it should also be personally united to the Son of God, Of which should follow those same three most absurd and false things, that the sacramental & personal union are one and the same, that Christ in this Sacrament should consist of three natures personally, essentially united & knit together: to be short, that the bread and the wine should be advanced into a condition infinitely better than the Church itself. For so the bread should properly be the very body of Christ: but the Church should be the body of Christ but figuratively or mystically: neither is there any faithful man that is very Christ, but only a partaker of Christ. 219. Question. I pray thee add also the sixth. Answer. If that same bread be properly the body of Christ, & that same wine properly the blood of Christ, as they are distinct signs, so also the body shallbe separated from the blood: or either sign shallbe properly whole Christ. Now if this later be true, the letter shall not simply be kept, but a synecdoche must be placed: as for example it must have been said properly, This bread is my body and my blood: and this cup is my blood and my body. And to what purpose I pray you had there needed a double element? 220. Question. And wilt thou add as so the seventh? Answer. That which is said to be with another thing, or in an other, or under an other, without commixtion being also joined with a most near knitting together, cannot properly be said too be that thing itself: As for example sake although the soul and the body be joined together personally and inseparably, yet notwithstanding no man will say the the body is the soul, or the soul is the body. Much less therefore the sacramental conjunction shall bring this thing to pass, that the bread shall properly be the very body of Christ. 221. Question. Wilt thou also rehearse the eight? Answer. If that same bread be properly the body of Christ, than it should seize to be bread, forasmuch as these two things are wholly in kind unlike. But if it cease to be bread, now the sacrament shall not consist of these two things one earthly and the other heavenly, unless thou call the earthly shadows, that is to say, accidences without a subject. But these being overthrown, the proportion of substances shallbe also overthrown, & therefore the whole reason of a sacrament shallbe overthrown. It must needs be therefore, that that bread be called the body of Christ figuratively. But now I come to the other rank of arguments, to wit, drawn from those words which go before and follow those former, This is my body, and from the circumstances and conferences of other places of the scripture. 222. Question. Tell the first. Answer. I say out of the former words, too wit, he took and broke, that this is plain, that that which he took could not properly of Christ he called his own body, as of whom it could not be said that he took, held and broke himself to himself, but as one that gave and broke the bread of his body received in too his hands, to his Disciples manifestly beholding him. Therefore August. that he might mollisie, that same sacramental Metonymia he said that Christ did after a certain sort bear himself in his own hands, namely, lest it should seem to be a vain Sacrament, the name of the thing signified is given unto the sign: The same also is to be thought of the cup, as we shall show in his proper place, into which undoubtedly, Christ had never yet powered forth that same blood of his contained in his body. 223. Question. Tell the other. Answer. If the body should properly be spoken of the bread, and the blood of the wine, than the words following should properly also be spoken of the bread which is given for you: & which is shed for you, both which is most false. 224. Question. Rehearse the third. Answer. By that that is added, Do this in the remembrance of me, it is plain that the body is not properly so called of the bread, nor the blood of the wine, because they were there present together in the same place whereas bread & wine were: Now remembrance is not of things present, but of things absent. Therefore Bernard in his 33. sermon upon the Canticles disputing of the self same thing, opposeth Faith, and the show (that is, that that is seen with the eyes) and also remembrance and presence. 225. Question. Show the fourth argument. Answer. The same appeareth plainly by those words that are added, 1. Cor. 11. 16. As often as ye shall do this, ye shall show forth the lords death till he come. Verily he that shall come is not yet come, or if he be now properly come, these mysteries are no longer to be celebrated. Now all these things follow, not only if the bread be properly the body, but also if, within, or under the Bread and Wine he be present in the self same place where there is bread and wine. 226. Question. Declare the fift. Answer. So I gather it from the Circumstance of the time. At what time the Lord said of that wine, This is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins, as yet it was not shed forth out of the vessel of the body of Christ, neither ever after is it read to be gathered in any vessel. Therefore in that cup then there was not properly that blood of Christ shed for us between the hands of the tormentors, neither now also is it. Much less therefore was that wine than or now is that same blood properly shed for us. But that same proposition is figurative which testifieth unto us, that we truly and spiritually through faith are partakers of Christ himself and of his passion and of all other his gifts. 227. Question. Declare the sixth, Answer. I gather also by that, that Chrysostom hath written, that Christ himself was a Partaker of those signs. Hom. in Matth. 83. But if his body should be spoken properly of that bread which Christ did eat, and his blood of that Wine which Christ drank, then should Christ properly eat and drink himself. 228. Question. Show the seventh. Answer. I gather out of other places of the scripture, that this is not a proper proposition. For as often things unlike are attributed to the same subject, it must needs be that some of these be taken properly, and some figuratively, which I set forth by examples thus: The Gospel is called the power of God to salvation. Rom. 1. 16. And in the beginning of the same chapter it is called the doctrine revealed from above, concerning the Son of God: which two forasmuch as they are diverse, it must needs be understood that one be spoken properly and the other figuratively. It is gathered not darkly out of john the 17. 3. that Faith is the knowledge of the true God & of jesus Christ, whereby we are saved. The same is defined also to be the ground of those things which are not. Therefore one of these Heb. 11. 1. must needs be spoken poperly, the other figuratively. john is not Elias: john 1. 21. And he is that Elias that shall come. Mat. 11. 14. Therefore in one of those we must needs grant, that there is a figure. It is plain that Herode was properly a man. The same also is called a Fox, one of these therefore must be understood to be spoken figuratively. Of which, infinite examples might be alleged: & yet notwithstanding these are not alleged by me, as though they were, to be expounded by the same figure, but to show that that I have said is true: to wit, as often as unlike things are spoken of the same Subject, the one of them must be a proper attribution, the other figurative. But the cup, that is to say, the wine contained in the cup, is sometime said to be blood, sometime said to be the Testament in blood: and yet notwithstanding it is plain that the self same is properly the liquor of the Wine, as it is called of Christ. It is not therefore properly man's blood, and much less also it is properly the last Testament of ones will that shall die: but it is called blood, because it is the Sacrament of his blood, whereby that same covenant or Testament of the remission of sins and of everlasting life, is stricken with us: the same also is the Testament in blood, because it is the pledge of his Testament which is sealed and ratified by the blood of the Lord As the Lord also in Moses in the same place when had called Circumcision the covenant, himself doth afterwards interpret it too be the sign of the covenant. 229. Question. Show the eight. Answer. The conference of that place, the 1. Cor. 10. 16. with the words of Christ in which he calleth that same bread his body, & that same cup his blood: where that same bread is called the communion of his body & that same cup the communion of his blood, doth altogether show that both these sayings are figurative, or at least wise one of them too wit, either that of Paul or that of Christ. Question. To wit that of Paul, is to be expounded out of the proper saying of Christ. Answer. Therefore at the length thou art brought too confess that whosoever doth maintain and defend figures in the controversy of the Sacraments, do not overthrow the Testament of the Son of God. But to the matter. It is easy too show out of our seventh Argument, and out of that that went next before, that both these were figurative, whether thou do interpret that out of this, or this out of that: as for example both these Propositions, This cup for this Wine is my blood: and this wine is the communion of my blood: (now the like is too be thought of bread) it is divers from this, this wine is the liquor of the vine, which notwithstanding thou must needs say is most proper, and therefore so stoutly to be maintained, because as we have said, overthrowing or taking away the substance of the sign, the foundation of the analogy or proportion should also be taken away and overthrown. Question. I would answer that both Christ and Paul passed this over as a thing sufficiently known. For to what purpose should he have taught his Disciples, that that bread which he held in his hands, was bread, and that wine? But undoubtedly it behoved him to teach them that, which otherwise they would never have believed, too wit, that those things also which he held in his hands and gave them, in, under, or with Bread and Wine: was his body and his blood. Answer. Therefore thou must needs determine that the figure Synecdoche is in these words, This bread and this cup, and therefore whilst thou studiest to avoid figures, thou fallest into a figure. But we will way this Synecdoche in his place, to wit, when we shall come too the confutation. But thou in the mean time shalt not so escape. For with what manner and with how great conjunction soever thou shalt couple those two unlike things in themselves indeed together, (such as are the bread and the body, wine and the blood, yet notwithstanding thou shalt never bring to pass, that the one may properly be said to be the other. No neither in the conjunction, can one be said to be the other, but either of them must be made a certain third thing. Therefore this at the least must be a proper proposition, in, or under, or with this bread and wine is my body & blood. It remaineth therefore that thou confess, that both this saying of Christ, and that of Paul, whether thou interpret this out of that, or that out of this, be figurative. 230. Question. How therefore dost thou think this place of Paul should be expounded? Answer. First of all they are to be confuted, who take the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth common for distribution, which the matter itself crieth out too be most absurd, forasmuch as bread and wine are substances, but distribution is an action: and Paul himself expounding that, useth a word that signifieth to participate, and the scope itself of the Apostle requireth that it declare a communion and not a distribution. Moreover it is wonder that they who allow no trope in the matter of the Sacrament, that they can in this place interpret the communicating of the body for the body communicated or distributed: that is, can confound the action with the effect. For neither in good sooth do they this well, because they refer this distribution to the word of breaking as though Paul had written, the bread which we distribute is the body communicated. For the word of breaking aught to be taken properly in this action as we have showed before, and it appeareth by the word he gave, which is added to the word he broke, in the narration of the Evangelist. Question. What therefore thinkest thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be called? Answer. communion and fellowship which is the true signification of his word, & it differeth somewhat from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysost. noteth, although Paul useth the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently one for the other. Such as the Communion is therefore, that is to say, the natural society of all men in the common nature of flesh & blood, as between themselves & with Christ himself: such is the communion by the goodness of God betwixt all the faithful & Christ, into whom they are engrafted and incorporated. Question. But by what manner of speech may that bread be said to be that same fellowship and communion. Answer. With the Logicians it is called a causal affirmation, whereby the proper effect is attributed to the proper cause, whether it be material or efficient: which manner or fashion is to be referred to the fourth manner of affirming by itself, as they speak in the schools. Now a figurative speech is when the effect is put for the cause, or else forsooth for the very efficient cause: as for example, when Christ is called the resurrection & the life, for the raiser and giver of life: or the cause of resurrection & life: or for the material cause, as when Paul sayeth, You are my glory or rejoicing, the is to say the matter of my glory or rejoicing; or for the instrumental which also is itself, efficient, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say, being as it were an under server, as when the Gospel is said to be the power of God to salvation, that is to say, the instrument that God useth effectually too save us. So also in this place that same Bread and that same wine are said to be that communion, that is to say, the instruments whereby that same consociation and fellowship of ours is wrought and ratified in us. Now this same instrument is sacramental or rather symbolical and not the very efficient cause, which is the holy Ghost. Therefore as that same figurative proposition of Christ, This bread is my body is expounded by this, This bread is sacramental my body: so also this saying of Paul, This bread is the communication of my body, is to be expounded by this proper. This bread is the Sacramental instrument of our consociation and fellowship with the body of Christ. For there the figure is only in the Copulative, that knitteth the matter together, to wit, a Sacramental Metonymy or translation: but here also in the attribute is a figure which they call Metalepsis, too wit, putting the effect for the cause. 231. Question. But canst thou beside bring forth any other arguments? Answer. Yea that can I. And first of all that same from the essential and constituting form of all the Sacraments, which is in sum, that they may consist of the sign and the thing signified, or as Irenaeus speaketh, of an earthly and heavenly thing. But now neither can that that is signified be spoken of the sign, nor the sign of the thing signified but by the figure of Metonymy: and therefore the propositions of the first kind are declared by the verb [signifieth] (understand of the sacramental signification to which also the giving or ministration is always adjoined) but the latter by the Verb Passive: as this bread is my body, that is, This bread sacramentally signifieth my body: my body is this bread: that is, my body sacramentally is signified by this bread. Now that this is the essential form of all sacraments it appeareth by the very name of sacraments, as witnesseth Augustine in these words, in his. 5. Epistle: It were overlong (saith he) to dispute of the variety of signs which when they belong to holy things 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 sign, the visible plant the spiritual & heavenly thing jesus Christ, life: In the tree of the knowledge both of good and evil, a natural plant also, and the experience of good and evil: in Circumcision, the cutting off the foreskin, and the taking away of sin, the imputation of righteousness and regeneration: in the passover the Lamb and Christ: in the rock of the desert, the rock and Christ pouring out blood: in the Baptism of the cloud, the clouds and the sea and the blood of Christ: in Manna, bread given by miracle, and the flesh of Christ: In the Sabbath the seventh day with ceasing from work and the mortification of the flesh and everlasting life: In the Sacrifices the offering slain, and the oblation of Christ made by himself in the Sanctuary, the entrance into into the Temple and heaven in the Tabernacle, the work made with hand and the body of Christ: in the Cherub in the Images over the Ark, and the Angels: in the propitiatory or mercy seat, the gilded covering, and jesus Christ. So in the appearing of the dove, the dove and the holy Ghost: in baptism, water with washing, and the blood of Christ washing us: in the fiery tongues, the natural fire and the holy Ghost. Finally even so in the Supper of the Lord, bread and wine, the signs, and the body and blood our Lord the things Sacramentally signified. Question. But many of these are rather types than Sacraments. Answer. Admit it be so, yet this notwithstanding is the form of all symbolical speeches concerning God. Therefore in the very writings of the Apostles they are called, Signs, Seals, Types, Figures, parables, shapes & resemblances. And of the Fathers also, besides that they are called figures, they are called mysteries, types, significations, similitudes, dark speeches, and mystical Symbolles, and by such like names. Question. What dost thou therefore conclude of all these? Answer. That neither the thing signified can be said of the sign, nor the sign of the thing signified, otherwise then by translation, and that, that is so usual in the scriptures, as that they never in a manner speak otherwise. 232. Question. But the Supper of the Lord hath a certain proper and special form which maketh that the same is not too be thought of that, which is to be thought of the other Sacraments. Answer. Albeit, that this specially belong unto those confutations which I would differ to their proper place, notwithstanding that the force of the former argument may appear more clearly, go too, let us speak somewhat also now concerning this matter. Indeed I grant that the Supper of the Lord hath his peculiar form, whereby it differeth from the rest, aswell old as new Sacraments. But to what end is this: For these forms, which are called discerning forms, because they do discern the specials of the same general, they do not take away the constituting in which of necessity all the specials must be constituted, that they may be referred to the common general. So for example sake, a living creature is the common essential form, and substance of all forms pertaining to that gender. Now reason is the form, whereby man is sundered from all other kinds of living creatures. Now wilt thou say that this same special form doth bring to pass that that same general (to wit, living creature) should not be laid altogether by the same reason of man and of other living creatures: And I pray thee, how if that which is called differentia or proprium: for now I do not distinguish betwixt these, should altogether take away the same attribution of gender, should the distinction consist of gender and difference: Therefore that same special difference of the lords Supper whatsoever it be, can not bring to pass that that same common reason which maketh a Sacrament, altogether by the same mean, should less be spoken of the Lords Supper, then of other Sacraments. Now that same common reason, as we have showed, is that the outward sign should signify another thing sacramentally. Now nothing is a sign of itself, forasmuch as a sign is in the kind of those things which are conferred with another, therefore that same remaineth common without exception to all Sacraments, that the thing signified is not the sign: because these two must be in very deed, and therefore the thing signified, can not be said of the sign but transitively. But furthermore here I will demand of thee what manner of difference thou makest this to be: Question. One in the Subject, an other in the attribute, the third in the very means of the attribution. Answer. And what in the Subject? Question Because the Elements of the Supper of the Lord, are divers from the Element of Baptism. Answer. Be it so. But what in the Attribute? Question. Because the body and blood of our Lord, are the signified things of the Supper of the Lord. Answer. Thou art deceived. For in Baptism also the blood of the Lord is the thing signified. But what in the attribution? Question. Because only the Elements of the lords Supper are said in the words of the institution to be the very body and the very blood of our Lord. Answer. And what wilt thou conclude thereof? Question. Forsooth that in Baptism, the very blood of Christ is not present and given, but only the fruit of the blood shed: but that in the Supper the body itself, and the blood itself is present, and offered to the mouth itself. Answer. Whether these things are truly said or no, we will see in their place. But I pray thee dost thou not mark that thou playest the Sophister? Question. Why so? Answer. Because thou changest the questions For we did not demand whether the matter of the lords Supper and of other Sacraments were one and the same, but whether in another kind of attribution that same matter of the lords Supper, (whether it be only the fruit, or it be Christ himself) be said otherwise of the bread & wine, than the matter whether it be the same or another, is said of other signs. Admit then that I grant that which thou hast said, yet notwithstanding there shall not be divers kinds of attributions, but also only divers things shallbe attributed. And surely unless it were so, that is, if the thing signified were otherwise said of the sign in the Supper of the Lord, then in other Sacraments and also in other types, they should not be referred to the same kind, for that same general form should not be the essential form of all: even like as if a living creature should be said of a man in any other respect then of a horse, a living creature should not be the common genus or kind of a man and a Horse. 233. Question. Wilt thou therefore that there shall be no special form of the lords Supper? Answer. God forbidden. But I say that the special form is partly in the proper Elements and rites, partly not in the attribute itself, but in the quality of that attribute: that is to say, because Christ is the matter of both Sacraments, in Baptism verily he is set out to us, as the laver and sealing up of our entrance into the Church; but in the Supper, as the heavenly nourishment of those that are entered in. 234. Question. I mean this, that the very body of Christ & his very blood in very deed is present, in or under, or with that bread and that wine in the lords Supper, but not so in the water of Baptism. Answer. Thou resistest therefore their doctrine, who teach that the humanity of Christ also is every where present according to the very substance. But now let us leave this. Dost thou not see that the question is again changed of thee? For neither did we indeed seek that whether the thing signified were present in the self same place where that bread and that wine was, or whether it were absent: but this we demanded in what kind of attribution the thing signified either present or absent might be said of the sign properly or figuratively: and whether it might be said in an other kind of attribution of the elements of the Lords supper then of the elements of other Sacraments. The question therefore of presence or absence maketh nothing to the matter, neither can by any manner of means bring to pass, that that which is, or is given, in, under, or with somewhat, either present or absent, should therefore be said properly too be that very thing, in, under, or with which it is. 235. Question. Let us go forward then to other arguments. Answer. I set down therefore first of all that which is most true, that the body of Christ is truly an organical and a natural body, the which nature he had neither then put of, when he instituted the supper, neither afterwards did his glory take it away from him. I set down also this, that Christ properly is said, according to the flesh, too be ascended, that is, gone out of the earth upwards, above the heavens, having changed the situation of his place. I set down also this third thing, too wit, that he shall not return from thence whether he ascended, before that day wherein he is looked for too come again. These grounds being thus laid, so I gather: If that bread be properly that very body, and that Wine properly that very blood, Yea further, if the Body and Blood be properly in, under, or with the bread and wine, they are then in the same being and occupying of a room, and in very deed are also present together, and in the self same moment there is present in as many places that same body and that same blood, as that same bread and that same wine are present. But this thing and they hold not in any form of argument or reason. But they are most certain. Both these opinions therefore, seeing they are against the analogy of Faith, are false. Notwithstanding both are witnessed in the holy scriptures, both therefore of necessity must be true. But two contradictories, if they be properly taken, can not be true. Of these therefore of necessity, one must be taken properly, the other figuratively. Question. But who will agree unto these grounds? Answer. Surely whosoever is a Christian. For he that denieth that the body taken of the son of God was a true, & therefore an organical body, he is a Martionite, and not a Christian. He that denieth, that Christ came according to his flesh thither whether he came, & went away whence he went, and therefore was not truly absent and present in certain places, he is refelled by the history of the Gospel. He that taketh away the propriety of a natural body, (that is to say, which is not in any other place then wherein it is limited) either from the time of that substantial union, or from the time of his ascension, he is an Eutichyan and not a Christian. They also that interpret the ascension of Christ after the mutation of quality and not of place, and interpret the heavens into which he ascended allegorically, they are refelled also by the history itself, and by the analogy and proportion of Faith, and that they may deny one usual type & figure, and altogether agreeable to the proportion of Faith, they bring in innumerable figures disagreeing from the proportion of Faith. Finally, they that think that the propriety of the words in the history of the ascension can stand with that real presence, either by consubstantion, or by transubstantiation, they maintain two contradictions at once to which contradiction that there is no place, neither in nature nor in the mysteries of faith, we will show in his place. This collection therefore standeth sure & is invincible: Christ according to the flesh properly, is gone from us above the heavens, not to come again from thence, before that he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. Therefore neither the bread which is in the earth, is properly the very flesh of Christ, neither the flesh of Christ is properly in, or with, or under the bread. Question. Yea but this same proposition Bread; this is my body, is no other wise true, now, then when Christ spoke it, yea, therefore now it is true, because than it was true, to wit, by the virtue of the same institution. But than was he himself present. Therefore now also the same presence is required. Answer. Of this we shall see afterwards. Now I say again, whether the body of Christ be determined to be present or absent, yet notwithstanding that that cannot stand, that that bread should be properly said to be the very body of the Lord. Now I proceed to those arguments which are taken from the true properties of man's flesh. 236. Question. Say on therefore. Answer. He that overthroweth the essential property of any thing, overthroweth the thing itself: because the definition being overthrown, the thing defined is overthrown. But to be limited and contained in a place is the essential property of a body. Therefore he that taketh away the limitation of place from the body of Christ; he abolisheth the very body itself. The proposition needeth no proof. The assumption is plain by the definition of the body, because it is said to be a divisible quantity, according to a threefold measure, length, breadth and thickness, and whose parts are bounded with one common bound, that is to say, the superficies. Also from the definition of a place. For a place is that, through which a touch is made both of that which conceineth, & of that which is contained. 237. Question. But I did think that a place was not the essence or substance of the body. Answer. So the Sophister's trifle. Neither do we say, that a place is the matter of the body, but placing as I may say necessarily and in itself is proper too bodies: Neither do we then consider the body as the matter, but as the quantity. Therefore Augustine speaking very well of the glorified body of Christ itself, If it be a body (saith he,) then is it in a place. And take away spaces from the bodies, and they shall be no bodies. But let us proceed. He taketh away the limitation of place, which contendeth that one and the self same body can be every where and in many places at once properly. This every one doth, which teacheth either that this bread is proper by the body of our Lord, or in very deed will have it to be present, in, with, or under the bread, and to be given too the outward senses in as many places as the Supper of the Lord is celebrated. Therefore. etc. I know that many flee unto the distinction of a body supernatural, certain also unto that common starting-hole of the omnipotency of God. But to what endeserues this? For the natural, general, and essential form, by which every body is a body, being taken away it shall follow, that that body ceaseth to be a body, from which that same essential form of a body is taken away, & they play the Sophisters: which reason from the accidental properties to the essential, of which matter we will speak in his place. 238. Question. Hast thou any other argument that thou canst allege? Answer. Yea that I have, and that of great weight. For the proper, perpetual and necessary effect being taken away, the antecedent also of the cause is taken away. I say therefore out of Saint john's verse. 51. Who so ever is a partaker of Christ, he is a partaker of everlasting life. But it is plain, that many do receive the Elements of the Lords Supper to judgement. Therefore none of these are partakers of Christ himself. But if properly and in very deed, the bread were the body of Christ, and that wine the blood of Christ, either by transubstantiation, or by real consubstantiation, who so ever should receive the Element, should receive also properly and in very deed the thing itself. Therefore etc. Question. Thou art not ignorant what is answered unto the proposition of this argument: to wit, that that saying of john and such other like, is to be understood of those that come unto it rightly and worthily. Answer. I know it, and I trust I shall easily confute this, as also that same threefold or rather fourfold eating. Question. What therefore dost thou conclude of all these? Answer. Surely that those propositions, this is my body which is given for you, and this is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins, are necessarily to be interpreted figuratively, to wit, by a sacramental metonimy, and yet neither for all that, is any thing withdrawn from the truth of the Sacrament, or from the true participation of Christ himself. 239. Question. I would gladly also that that were declared unto me, at what time thou thinkest the supper of the Lord ought to be celebrated. For we hear that the Christians are laughed to scorn of the jews, who sup so early, yea, and that against the manner of the most old and Apostolical church of Christ itself. Answer. Christ did celebrate these mysteries at night for two causes: For he would compare this new Sacrament which he instituted with the figure answering unto it. Now the passover was slain betwixt two evenings. And furthermore it is plain that this was the manner of the ancient, that they should sit down once, that is too say, in the evenings. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Latins (I think) called Prandium, that is, a dinner, as if a man should say, the leavings of the former meals, because that that very same day nothing in a manner was sodden, but somewhat was taken of the remnants of the former days meal in a manner they not sitting down neither was it of all, nor of full provision and iunquettes. It is no marvel therefore, forasmuch as Christ differred these same mysteries, as it were the sealing up of his Testament into his last banquet, that he rather instituted this rite in the Evening then in the Morning. Now it ought not too seem any wonder, that the old Church, whiles that those love feasts by little and little were taken away, that they did end their banquetes with the celebration of this Supper: the which thing notwithstanding, that it was not every where kept, it appeareth not only by the last Apology of justine, but also by other testimonies of the ancient fathers. But it cannot be gathered of any cir, cumstance of time out of the words of the institution, that Christ commanded any thing concerning the circumstance of time. Therefore custom hath very well prevailed, that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated rather in the morning meeting, & of those that are fasting, then of those that have dined, that they may come to the hearing of God's word and to this same heavenly mystery which is to be executed with great attention and high reverence, with the readier and better prepared minds. 240. Question. But hath the Lord appointed nothing concerning the place? Answer. He appointed the place, to wit, of the public congregation of the Church, whenas he ordained it amongst his disciples: neither said be, Do this every one, but do ye this. And Paul sayeth plainly, When ye come together, the which thing also the very name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & all the old Liturgies or forms of administering the Sacraments do show: & also the very scope of these mysteries, in our natural fellowship & consotiation in Christ is ratified, doth require. Now to appoint some certain place with a kind of religion (as it was not lawful in times passed too celebrate the passover other where then in that place the Lord had chosen) it were a jewish superstition. 241. Question. What therefore dost thou think of the supper of the Lord administered in private houses? Answer. I pass nothing at all of private houses, if the church, that is to say, the congregation do meet in them, as it was necessary in those same ancient times under the tyranny of the Roman Emperors, and is yet also necessary in our times in too many places. Question. And yet notwithstanding there are, which have once condemned these private meetings in the night. Answer. I do confess, that those same night meetings are not rashly too be tolerated, nor otherwise then by great necessity: whereupon also in times past occasion was taken of casting the Christians falsely in the teeth of night whoringes. Also in our times no less impudently objected to the French Churches. But if they think them therefore to be condemned, who while most cruel perfecution is hot, came together in our times by night, or yet come together, surely they must condemn all the true Apostolical Churches. But it was an easy matter for them, whose congregations by the authority and favour of their princes, being never driven into these narrow straits of the French men and other nations driven thereto, that either must want all Ecclesiastical administration of the word and Sacraments, or else must take whatsoever occasions of meeting together and comforting one another, it was an easy matter I say for them too find fault with other: from whom it was again lawful for them to appeal to the whole ancient and most pure Church, to the testimony of their conscience, to the fruits of the confession of Martyrs, and finally to the tribunal seat of Christ itself. And these forsooth accusers of the brethren, never showed themselves such, in that their war scarce enduring for a year as it is plain both these were and are who now have borne the weight of most horrible persecution these 50. years, neither yet by the grace of God do faint, under this burden. 242. Question. Let us return again unto the matter. Dost thou think that the Supper of the Lord ought to be celebrated in any other place then in the common and public congregation? Answer. This was a custom in the beginning of the old Church, that the Sacrament should be sent by Deacons to the sick that were absent from the public meeting, that is to say, at that time that the mysteries were celebrated of the rest in that meeting, because it was meet that those whom one disease did let too be present in body, should be accounted as if they were present: neither do I doubt but that that thing brought great comfort to those that were sick, the which custom I would very gladly were restored. But whether it be meet to be celebrated to the sick at that time when the supper of the Lord is not ministered in the Church of this I greatly doubt. Question. Why so? Answer. first, because the Supper of the Lord is not a private action of any household, but mere ecclesiastical: and therefore that same domestical Lamb, was slain in Israel, that yet notwithstanding it should not be done at any other time, then when all Israel did celebrate this mystery. Notwithstanding I do acknowledge that in this case it is somewhat divers. For although it were very meet that these mysteries, throughout whole Christendom albeit in diverse places, yet notwithstanding daily also if it were possible, or at least upon appointed, and set days were celebrated, which should profit very much to the witnessing of that same mutual fellowship and consotiation in Christ: notwithstanding forasmuch as neither of both can be obtained for many just and necessary causes it seemeth, I know not in what sort, to be contrary to the institution of the Supper of the Lord, that all the rest of the Church omitting it, some one house extraordinarily should celebrate those mysteries. Moreover unless that were done amongst all those that were sick, how shall the suspicion of partiality in respecting of persons be shunned? Now if the Supper of the Lord be to be ministered amongst all that are sick, let Pastors see by what means the profanation thereof may be avoided and how they may satisfy and undergo so great labours. The custom therefore of certain do nothing at all move me, although that it be very ancient, because the matter is too be judged, not by Examples, but by reasons. Finally that is most certain, that by this use the wicked things were brought into the Church: too wit, in the beginning the keeping of both signs, than the Wine waxing sour, the keeping only of one of the signs, which error is plainly against the nature of the Sacraments. Hence therefore sprang another error, as though by a certain magical pronunciation the thing signified were tied too the sign. To be short, it came so far, that salvation after a certain sort was tied too those signs. Question. But dost thou think that for these abuses the sick are to be deprived of this consolation? Answer. I verily think, that special care is too be had for cutting off those errors. Neither do I think that the sick are deprived either of the consolation of the word or sacraments if they be taught, because perhaps the time of relebrating the Supper with the rest of their brethren shall not fall out whiles they are sick or in the time of their death, therefore that they are not deprived of the fruit of that Supper which before they had celebrated. For neither is the efficacy of the Sacraments too be restrained to that time, wherein they are received, but is spread forth to all the times of a man's whole life. But if a man think that he can shun all these inconveniences, and think that those mysteries may be ministered to a sick man in the congregration, he requiring it, upon these conditions I would not be against this custom. 243. Question. But what thinkest thou of unleavened bread? Answer. Although I would not greatly contend of that matter as of a high point, yet notwithstanding, I say that it is a double blot in those Churches which rather use unleavened bread than bread that is leavened: for this both savoureth of judaisme, and it is less agreeable unto the proportion of daily meat. Question. Yea, but Christ first blessed sweet bread. Answer. Forsooth because he instituted this Supper at that time, wherein it was not lawful for the jews too use any other but sweet bread. Therefore so I return the argument upon their own hand. If Christ used that bread, which at that time was usual, for the celebration of this Supper, the like also is too be done of us, that is to say, he commanded us to take the common use. 244. Question. What thinkest thou of adoration? Answer. There is no doubt but that we must worship God every where, and specially in the holy mysteries: neither do I think that there is any Church in which there is not used a certain solemn giving of thanks, so also both an inward and outward worshipping, when these reverent mysteries as it were rather in the heavens then in the earth are celebrated. But in the very taking of bread, how dangerous worship is at the Table, as that that opened the first occasion too that bread worship, from whence at the length Satan cast men headlong to consubstantiation, the thing itself declareth. Wise men therefore have judged an honest reverence directed towards GOD to be sufficient. 245. Question. But that same ostentation which the Grecians call [lifting up the host] wouldst thou admit it? Answer. What forsooth, the very mother of that abominable bread worship? nay if there were now any use of it, would any wise man allow it? For this same rite savoureth partly of the relics of those same jewish Sacrifices in which those same shakings & heavings mentioned in the law were used, which were called Teruma and Tenupha: Partly also it is a greekish toy, as are many other rather Stagelike then Religious things, as it is easy to mark out of their Liturgies. For why should I not speak as the matter is? For we own unto them that same mixing also of water, which afterwards fell out to be a new sacrament. Question But these things are very ancient. Answer. What then? yet notwithstanding that same sentence of Cyprian is to be held what this or that man hath done, but what Christ hath commanded, that is to be done, when the matter concerneth his true worship. 246. Question. But wouldst thou admit all unto the lords Supper. Answer. That were more and time, which in very deed no man would admit, all boasting themselves for household servants into his house: which even the very Idolaters have not done, crying out in their services, away away, be ye far of, O ye proophane people: which thing also the Lord in times passed so severely forbade, that he took it impatiently that strange fire should be occupied in his holy services: who also with so many outward laws commanded that even they which were unawares defiled, should first be purged before he admitted them into his house, & specially before he admitted them to the ceremony of the passover: & shall that be thought now to be done lawfully under this colour, that every one shallbe believed to come worthily to the lords table, which having heard the Sermon shall rush thither? But I suppose that the Pastors ought necessarily to know the sheep even by the same order that reason itself hath appointed. First therefore for avoiding of profanation, I think that with a good conscience strangers are not to be admitted, altogether unknown to the Pastor: Moreover those whom age itself showeth not to be fit to make examination of themselves, indeed not as unworthy, but to be warned as yet not fit, lest they heap upon themselves damnation. But of those that are grown in years none to be admitted, unless he have first after a sort rendered a reason of his Faith, as one not only borne in the Church of God, but as such a one of whom the Pastor may probably conjecture, to be a Christian, who must render account of all his sheep before the Lord. Last of all, I would account those for strangers by the word of God, whose hypocrisy by the just and lawful judgement of the Ecclesiastical presbytery shallbe convicted to be such, that for a time they shall be inhibited from the common profession of Christianity, until they be found, hearty to acknowledge their sin, not that they should perish, but that at the least being enforced by shame, they might repent and amend, and so the whole Church might rejoice again of the receiving again of a sheep that had gone astray. I say and am ready to prove, that this hath been the order always kept, even until these times ever since the Church began, of severing the profane from the holy, and revealed hypocrites from the rest of professors of Christian religion. 247. Question. But dost thou think this discipline to be so necessary (whereby until the testimony of repentance they are to be separated from the rest of the sheep, which might seem otherwise to infect the rest, or unless they be noted with this kind of mark, not to return into the flock from whence they have erred,) that where that is not, the Church can not stand? Answer. God forbidden. For the foundation of the Church is far otherwise, which oftentimes even the very public ministry of the word, being as it were overwhelmed (as in the memory of our Fathers in many ages of Popery) was even as it were buried. But surely it pitieth me concerning those Churches in which every one, the judgement of the Church being silent, is left unto his own conscience, because Paul writing unto the Corinthians, having a great deal less occasion witnesseth, that so neither the profanation of the Lords Supper can be avoided, nor escape unpunished. But also I much more fear those churches, if they abuse that which is given to edification, to destruction. 248. Question. But what thinkest thou of them that for the impurity of others refuse to come to the Lords Supper? Answer. I think that they greatly offend: for neither by an others man's conscience, but by his own must every one be tried. 249. Question. But is it free for every one, either to come to the lords Supper, or to abstain from it? Answer. No not so: for it is a commandment of God, do ye this. Question. But the Apostle forbiddeth to come unworthily. Answer. I grant it. And therefore he biddeth us to come worthily, but he commandeth not that we shun it, although it were better to abstain, then to come unworthily. 250. Question. But thou art not ignorant how many things may and are wont to be said against those things which I have heard of thee, to the confutation whereof, when it shall please thee we will come. Answer. I know it, and have already weighed all these things with myself, of which when opportunity shall serve, we will so handle the matter, that I trust thou wilt allow my reasons. Now let it suffice that I have spoken these things, that thou mightest understand what my opinion is, concerning these matters. FINIS. ¶ IMPRINTED at London, at the three Cranes in the vintry, by Thomas Dawson, for Thomas Woodcock.