sorte as wée eate the breade and drinke the wine which represent them vnto vs P. If there were none other reason but that which may be gathered of that which I haue euē now spoken it mought suffice vs to discharge our heads of all such imaginations M. I doe not well vnderstand yet what thou meanest herein P. Seing that Iesus Christe hath ordeyned one seuerall signe to signifie his body and an other seuerall signe to signifie his bloud and that it hath pleased him so to discerne them the one from the other the better to represent to vs how his bloud was separated from his body for vs in such sorte as his life and soule was separated likewise it should also followe that his body must be eatē a parte as we there eate the breade and there drink the bloud a parte as we there drinke the wine M. If it were so we shoulde not haue in the Supper the liuing body of Christ but dead and other thā he is raigning in heauen where his bloud is not separated frō his body P. Thou sayest truth But thou hast yet to note that if the body and bloud of Iesus Christ were giuen vs to nourish and mainteyne vs in this corporall life as is bread and wine we shoulde then also eate the body and drinke the bloude of Christe corporally as we doe eate and drinke the corporall breade and wine But forsomuche as they are giuen vs for spirituall nouriture we must eate and drinke them spiritually M. What doest thou call to eate and drinke spiritually Peter To speake properly to eate and drinke is vnderstoode of the body and of the bodily meate and drinke but when we speake of spirituall thinges we take those wordes for a figure by the whiche we declare the spirituall thinges by the bodily thinges bycause of the similitude and agremente that they haue togither M. Why is that done P. To the ende that by the similitude and comparison of corporall thinges we moughte the better vnderstande the spirituall things Of the true spirituall eating and drinking M. DEclare this to me yet somewhat more plainely Peter Thou mayest well vnderstande that the soule and the Spirite do neyther eate nor drinke corporally and materially as dothe the bodye Mathevve I doe well vnderstande at the leaste that they haue neither mouth nor téeth nor stomackes nor bellies corporall whereby they may do the same P. And therefore it must néeds be that if the soule and the spirite do eate and drinke they eate and drinke in an other sorte than doth the body the whiche is proper and agreable to their nature M. There is reason in that whiche thou sayest P. And on the other side thou mayest well knowe also that the flesh of Iesus Christ is neyther eaten nor chawed neyther is swalowed downe into the stomacke and bellie neyther is it digested as is the corporall and materiall meate M. For what cause is it then that Iesus Christ hath vsed that manner of spéeche saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life P. It is to giue vs the better to vnderstande the communion and coniunction whiche we haue with him and how that his flesh and his bloud do the very same towarde the soule and also toward the body touching the spirituall life being receiued with a true and liuing faith as do the bread and wine towards the body touching the bodily life whē they are bodily eaten dronken The sixtenth Dialogue is of the transubstātiation cōsubstantiation and of the true presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper Of the error of transubstantiation and hovv the Supper cannot be a Sacramente if the bread and the vvine do not there remayne in their proper substance MATHEVV HOw is it that men do eate the flesh of Iesus Christ and do drinke his bloud as thou hast euen nowe saide It is to bée vnderstoode that the breade and the wine be transubstantiate and conuerted into them or else that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine P. For the firste there is no reason eyther to thinke or saye that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Iesus Christe M. For what cause P. Bycause that if the bread the wine did not remayne still in the supper bread and wine in their proper substance they shoulde not be the signes of the body of the bloud of Iesus Christe but if they were conuerted into the same they shoulde be the selfe same thing the which they oughte to signifie and represente vnto vs. M. What inconueniente should there be in that P. There shoulde be this inconuenient in it that the supper should be a Sacramente withoute signe and so shoulde it haue no Sacramentall signe without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments Of things vvithout the vvhich the sacraments cannot be sacramēts M. HOwe vnderstandest thou that P. Thou must note that a Sacramente cannot be a Sacramente excepte it haue at the leaste thrée things whiche are of the proper substance of all Sacramens M. Whiche are these thrée things P. The firste is the worde of God which is the foundation of all the Sacraments M. And the seconde P. The visible and materiall signes such as God hath ordeyned by that very word M. And the third P. The thinges signified aswell by that word as by the signes Of things vvhich are to be considered in the vvord of God in all Sacraments and in the signification of the same M. DEclare vnto me that whiche thou sayest by some similitude P. Séeing that we be vppon the matter of the Supper thou hast firste the worde of Iesus Christ in the which thou hast to note two pointes M. Whiche be they P. The first is the commandement which Iesus Christe there giueth to take and to eate the bread to drinke the wine which are giuen in the same M. Which is the secōd P. The promise whereby he declareth what it is that this bread and wine do signifie and for what cause he hath ordeyned and commaunded to receiue them and what frute we must looke for of them Math. Wherevpon takest thou thys promise Pe. Vppon that whiche is saide of the breade This same is my bodye whiche is broken for you and in like sorte vppon that whiche is spoken of the wyne Thys cuppe is my bloude or the newe Testamente in my bloude whiche is shedde for you doe this in remembraunce of mée Math. Muste wée vnderstande the lyke of all the other Sacramentes to witte that they haue commandemēt and promisse from God Peter There is no doubte thereof Ma. What is there more yet to cōsider cōcernyng the worde of GOD P. There is nothing more to be consydered concerning that same exteriour worde whyche is pronounced by the mouth of the mynisters Math. What resteth there yet more Peter That which is signified by the woorde the whiche doth also declare the signification
in the death and passion of Iesus Christe and the true and spirituall cōmunion that we haue by the same with all the giftes and graces of the same The second is to yelde thankes vnto him and to giue testimonie of oure faith towards him of our charitie which we haue towards our brethrē and of the vnion with his Church The third to represente to vs by the breade and wyne whyche are there distributed the whole and perfecte spirituall nouriture whiche wée haue by the meane of the bodie flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ to the end that we maye be spiritually nourished into eternall lyfe according to the benefit whiche we haue already receyued by our regeneration whereof the Baptisme is to vs as a Sacramente in the whiche wée haue in the Supper as it were a guage of oure resurrection the whiche wée doe beleeue and wayte for Wherfore euen as the breade and wyne be there giuen to vs visibly and bodily euen so are the bodie and bloud of Iesus gyuen to vs in déed but inuisibly and spiritually by the mean of faith by the vertue of the holy Ghost for he is the meane by whiche wée haue true Cōmunion and true vnion with Iesus Christ and all hys Church the which is his bodye whereof all true Christians are membres Of the signification of the signes of bread and wyne in the Supper and of the agreemente and difference of them with the things that they signifie and of the error of the popish transubstantiation Chap. 40. WE then take the breade the wyne not for the propre body and bloud of Iesus Christe and the very naturall substance of them as if the breade and wyne were transubstantiate and conuerted into that very bodie and bloud to eate and drinke them bodyly and carnally or to worship them as Idols in steade of Iesus Christ as the Papists doe no more do wée take them only as common breade and wyne but we holde them as very signes of that body and bloud which were giuen for vs to death and of the whiche we are spiritually made partakers in dede according to the testimonie which Iesus Christ yeldeth vnto vs by his word in this holy Sacramēt in the meane while the bread and the wine do no more chaunge substance nor qualitie in the same thā doth the water in baptisme or the waxe wherein the seale of the Prince is imprinted also as the body and bloud of Iesus Christe are not naturally nor bodily conioyned with them but only in manner whiche is proper to sacraments that manner is such that albeit the signe be not the thing it selfe which it doth signifie yet is it not without the same whiche is communicated to the faithful spiritually in this Sacramente euen as the signe is administred vnto thē corporally by the meane which hath bene aboue spoken of Of the commemoration of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ in the Supper Chap. 41. ON the contrary we oughte to be assured that this holy Sacramente was not ordeyned to make a Sacrifice in the which Iesus Christe should be offered againe for the redemption of soules as well liuing as dead but to make commemoration of the sacrifice the which Iesus Christe himselfe hath made once of hys owne body and bloud by the whiche he hath once bought and sanctified for euer all the children of god Wherefore he hath ordeyned this holy sacrament to refresh our memorie and to sturre vs vp by this meane to acknowledge him and to render him immortall thanks in waiting that in his last cōming he may appeare from heauen where he now sitteth at the right hande of God vntill the last day Of the Supper and of the Masse of the Papistes and of the principall pointes wherin it is different and contrary to the true Supper Chap. 42. SEing then that the institution of the holy Supper of the Lorde and the ende for the whiche it was ordeined is wholly ouerthrown in the Masse supper of the Papists it is plain that neither the one nor the other not only can not be accōpted for the Supper of the Lorde nor celebrated to suche an ende But ouer and aboue that who soeuer will be accompted a christian and a partaker of the true table of the Lorde maye in no wyse communicate nor assist neyther at the Masse nor Supper of the Papistes if hée wyll not communicate at the Lordes table and at the diuels table altogether For fyrste where Saincte Paule sayeth playnelye that wee must shewe the Lordes death in his Supper and that nothing be declared nor sayde in the Churche but in suche a toung as all men may vnderstand All is sayde in the Masse and supper of the Papiste in a toung which the poore people vnderstande not And they doe not declare vnto them the Institution of the holye Supper of the Lorde The whyche thyng is euen of as greate effecte as yf there were no worde of God at all séeing it is not vnderstoode Without whyche woorde the Supper can not bée the Supper Moreouer the signes are there so confounded with the things which they signifie that they be all one thing wherefore that is as much as to haue sacramēts without signes Thirdly the bread wine are there worshipped as Idols and as Gods newly made wherein there is not one idoll onely but two as if the bloude were separate from the body Fourthly they be there also offered in steade of Iesus Chryste in suche sorte as the masse is holden for a Sacrifice made for the redemption of soules It is holden also for a meritorious woorke whyche bryngeth Saluation vnto men as doth the Deathe and Passion of Chryste Fyfthely is that albéeit there be a certayne kynde of Communyon in the common Supper of the people yet in their Masses there is none at all For so much as the Préest whiche saith it maketh his supper all alone not admitting any one therevnto Wherefore such a supper may better be called an Excommunication than a communication For there is no communication nor communion where nothing is common and where one man alone taketh all that whiche should be distributed to al men in common Now then if there were none other faulte in the masse but only these fiue so muche lacketh it to be accompted the Supper of the Lorde that not only all the true vse of the same is there wholy ouerthrowen but also Iesus Christe is therein fully renounced by those whiche communicate there or beleue it And by the same meane the vertue efficacie of the death and passion of Christe is there vtterly of none effecte and abolished Of the proofe that euery man oughte to make of him selfe to communicate worthily at the supper and of the things required in the same Chap. 43. FVrder seing that the holy supper is ordeyned to suche an ende as hath bene alredy declared none may communicate in the same but to his condemnation which cōmeth
as witnesses and solemne othes by whome wede as it were homage to God and do make profession of our faith and Religion A. It is euen so Of the number of Sacraments vvhich are in the Chucrhe of Christ D. How many Sacramentes are there in Christ his Church A. There are but two whiche may be properly accoumpted for true Sacraments D. Which is the firste A. That of baptisme D. And the seconde A. The supper Of Baptisme D. What is baptisme A. It is a sacramēt by the which Iesus Christ doth offer vnto vs the remission of our sinnes and our regeneration vnder the figure of the water as he doth in déede communicate the same vnto vs by his holy spirite D. Doth it any thing else A. In like sorte it testifieth to vs that he receyueth vs into his Churche as true members of the same D. And of our parte what do we A. We testifie in lyke sorte that we acknowledge him for suche an one as he declareth himselfe towardes vs and that we beleue that he maketh vs partakers of all his great riches Of the Supper D. What is the supper A. It is a Sacrament by the which Iesus Christ doth present vnto vs vnder the signes of bread and wine the communion that we haue with him and with his Church D. Is there nothing else represented vnto vs in it A. The spirituall nouriture that we haue by faith in his flesh and in his bloud whiche haue ben giuen for vs. D And as touching the rest do we not there make the same profession of our faith that we do in baptisme A. It must be so vnderstood for so muche as such is the nature of all Sacraments and one of the principall ends and purposes for the which they are ordeyned of God. To vvitte vvhether the bread the wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper D. Dost thou thinke that this bread and this wine that are giuen for signes in the Sacramente be the very naturall body and bloud of Iesus Christ A. If they were his very naturall bodie and bloud they could then not be the signes of it D. Why not A. For so much as if it were so there should be no difference betwene the signes and the things whiche they signifie D. Is there none other inconuenient A. There is also this inconuenient that if it were so this doctrine shoulde be wholly contrary to the articles of oure faith and namely to that of the ascention of Iesus Christ into heauen Of the coniunction of the signes in the supper vvith the thinges that they signifie D. Dost thou then thinke that the body and bloud are vnited and ioyned togither naturally and corporally with the bread and the wine A. No especially for two causes D. Whiche is the firste A. Seing there is question of spirituall nouriture in this holy Table we may not imagine here a materiall meate which is eaten on the same table as is bodily meate D. Which is the second A. It is that we shal fall into the same inconuenient whereof we haue euen now spoken touching the articles of our faith D. Do we then receiue ther nothing els but material bread and wine A. Yes that we do D. What is it A. The very body and bloud of Iesus Christ signified to vs by them Of the presence of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper D. How may we receiue them if they be not there euen as thou saist A. I sayd not but that they were in dede in the supper or otherwise it should not be the true supper of Iesus Christ D. How dost thou thē vnderstande it A. Albeit that I denie the bodie and the bloud to be there naturally and carnally I denie not therefore but that they be there giuen and receyued spiritually in déede euen as that sacramente witnesseth it vnto vs. D. Thou doest not then denie the presence of the very body and very bloud of Iesus Christ in the supper A. No. D. What wilte thou then say for full resolution A. I will only say that the manner of that presence is not carnall and materiall but spirituall and diuine Of them to vvhome the communion of Sacramentes doth belong D. Seing then we vnderstande what the true nature of Sacraments is shewe me now which they be to whome they oughte to be administred A. It is easie to vnderstand by that which hath alredy bin said of the nature of them D. How dost thou vnderstand it A. Seing they be as seales of the worde of God and of the alliance that he hath made with his people and as a protestation of our faith towarde the same the matter is very playne that they belōg but only to those which vouch that doctrine and aliance and are comprised in the same Of the proofe that is required of euery man in the Supper D. Bycause that the supper is not administred but to such as are alredy at the age of discretion shew me how euery man ought to prepare himself for to receiue the same A. Sainct Paule giueth the rule when he admonisheth euery mā to proue himselfe D. What meaneth he by that proofe of himselfe A. That euery man do diligently examine him selfe whether he haue in him the things without the which he may not worthyly communicate at the holy Sacramente Of the principall points vppon the which euery man ought to examine and proue himselfe D. Whiche be those things A. There be chiefly thrée as men maye iudge by the matters that we haue handled heretofore De. Whiche is the first An. It is true repentaunce and a true acknowledging of his offences and sinnes for the whiche Iesus Christe dyed as he declareth vnto vs by the same holy sacrament D. Whiche is the second A. True faith in the onely grace and mercie of God whiche is offered and graunted vnto vs in Iesus Chryst and by Iesus Chryst as that Sacrament also testifyeth De. The thirde An. True charitie and vnion towarde all the membres of Iesus Christ as it is represented vnto vs in that wée there eate all of one self bread and drink all of one selfe cuppe Of the ministers of the Churche and of Magistrates D. There resteth nowe but one pointe it is to witte by whome these sacramentes ought to be administred A. By those same ministers to whome the charge to administer the worde of God hath bene committed by lawfull order as he hathe ordeyned in his Churche De. Is it lawfull then for none other An. As GOD hath ordeyned that there should be in the common wealth certain Magistrates and officers for the administration of ciuile and earthlye matters to the ende there shoulde be no confusion euen so hathe he willed his Churche to haue hir ministers chosen by lawfull vocation as his officers for the administration of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall matters to the ende that euery thing bée there handled and gouerned
soule from the whiche sinne cheefely doth procéede For the bodie shoulde not sinne at all if sinne were not firste in the soule M. Why sayst thou so P. Forsomuch as the body is but as it were the instrument of the soule by the whiche she worketh and dothe hir workes wherfore if there be faulte in the worke the faulte maye not be attributed to the instrument but rather to the woorker whiche worketh or else if there bée faulte in the instrumente it is greater in the woorker whiche woorketh euill Mathewe Thou wilte then conclude that it was necessarie that Iesus Chryste shoulde suffer for vs not onely in bodie but also in soule Peter He hathe righte well declared it when he sayde My soule is heauie euen to deathe and when he did sweate bloud in great abundance euen for very sorrowe and anguishe that he felte in his soule in the whyche hee hathe suffered more than in his bodie for so muche as he bare the iudgemente of God in the same chéefly whyche the bodye coulde not apprehende but in as muche as the féeling of it is come to it by the meane of the soule Mathew The passage whiche thou haste euen now alledged séemeth to me very cleare and plaine against those whiche estéeme the Godheade of Iesus Chryste to bée in steade of his soule Peter Iesus Chryste hym selfe hathe yet more confirmed that which thou sayest when he yelded vp his spirite vppon the Crosse and that he sayde Father I commende my soule into thy handes M. This passage sheweth playnely that by the death of Iesus Christ there was a very separation of spirite and bodye and so consequently of the soule for so muche as the spirite is also taken for the soule P. The matter is very plaine For if the diuinitie of Iesus Christ had ben in stead of his soule without a very humane soul he could not haue died of a very humane death forsomuch as it can not dye except there be very separation of bothe bodye and soule in man. The nynth Dalogue is of the offices of Iesus Christ Of the signification and exposition of the name of Christ and of his offices the whiche that name doth comprehend MATHEVV I Do now wel vnderstād all the matter which thou hast nowe handled ther resteth that thou expounde vnto me that which thou hast to say yet concerning the office of Iesus Chryste P. Forsomuche as we haue alredy spokē largely inough when we did speake of the meane by the which man is deliuered from sin made agréed with God that whiche we haue already sayd may serue vs much to that whiche yet resteth to be spokē of M. What wilt thou then say more P. We haue nothing here to consider but only that whiche the name of Iesus Christe doth importe M. And what doth it import P. First he is called by the name of Iesus which signifieth Sauior to admonish vs that he was sent vnto vs from the Father to saue vs and that we may haue saluation by none other but by him only M. And what importeth the name of Christ P. Thrée offices whiche belong vnto him for whose cause he is called by that name M. Whiche be these offices P. The office of a prophet of a king and of a Sacrificator M. What signifyeth then the name of Christe whiche comprehendeth so many things P. It signifieth anointed and bicause that in the auncient Churche of Israell the Prophets kings and sacrificators were annoynted by the ordinance of God in testimonie of their vocation and office they were called by that name and in like wise bycause they were true fygures of the very anoynted of the Lorde which is the very sonne of God whyche was anoynted by the holy Ghoste who was giuen to him withoute measure aboue all other men M. Thou wilte then say that Iesus Christ is also named with that name aswell bycause of the same vinction as bycause that all those offices were enioyned to him by the father P. It is euen so Of the office of a Prophete of Iesus Christ and of the per fection of his doctrine M. SHewe me nowe what euery one of these offices importeth and begin by his office of Prophete Peter As concerning hys office of Prophete hée is not onely a Prophete as those whiche in the Scriptures are called by that name but of an other sorte muche more excellent M. What is the difference that thou there puttest P. I finde there difference chiefly in two points M. Whiche is the firste Peter It is that God hathe not spoken in his Church in the person of Iesus Christe onely in the manner that he hath heretofore spoken by his Prophets in sundry sortes more couert and darke but hath spoken by his owne Sonne plainly and with an open face and hathe shewed vnto vs by him the doctrine of saluatiō so fully and perfectly that we may not attende any other perfection in thys worlde as touching that pointe M. Thy meaning is then that seeing Iesus Christ is come vppon earth he hath brought the doctrine requisite in his Churche so perfecte that no man may adde any thyng more therevnto and that none ought frō that time foorth to loke for any more ample and perfecte reuelation and manifestation of the wil of God. P. Sainct Iohn doth witnesse it vnto vs when he saithe that no man euer sawe God but the sōne which is in the bosom of the Father hath declared him vnto vs For this cause Iesus Christe him selfe hath saide that he hath declared to his disciples all that whiche he hath hearde of his Father Of the povver and efficacie of the ministerie of Iesus Christ and of that vvhich he giueth to the ministerie of others M. WHiche is the other pointe that thou hast yet to expounde concerning the difference whereof thou hast made mention touching the office of prophet of Iesus Christ P. It is that Iesus Christ is not a Prophete hauing none other power but to shew foorth the worde of God by mouth as the other ministers of the same do But beside that he hathe the power to imprinte the same in theyr hartes by the vertue of his holy spirite and to giue it vertue and efficacie in thē M. Thy meaning is then that the other prophets and ministers of the worde of God haue not that power P. Not of them selues but so farre foorth as Iesus Christ doth worke in them and in their ministerie by the diuine power of his holy Spirite And therefore when he commanded his Apostles to go and preache the Gospell and did giue vnto them power to pardon retaine sinnes by him he foorthwith gaue vnto them the holy Ghost brething vppon them in token of the same and afterwarde did send him to them vppon the daye of Pentecost after that he was ascended into Heauen M. I thinke that that whiche thou saist is the cause why Sainct Paule sayd he that
by the vertue of the same and therfore the holy Ghost is often signified in the holy Scriptures by water M. Are there yet any other proprieties P. Wée can not vnderstād our regeneration into a new creature to be made new men except wée vnderstād also the mortificatiō of our old nature which is our old Adam and our old man And therfore S. Paule sayth That by baptisme we ar dead and buried risen agayn with Iesus Chryst M. Is the water propre to signifie the deth burial of the old mā the resurrectiō and renewing of the newe P. The water alone doth not represēt vnto vs only these things but also the maner in the whiche it is administred in baptisme M. Howe may that be P. Thou séest that cōmonly it is poured vpon him that is baptised in token that our old Adam is drowned and dead in Iesus Christ as the olde Pharao and the Egyptians were drowned in the redde sea And therfore Saint Paul compareth baptisme to the passage thorowe the red sea M. And what signifieth thys that they doe but poure this water vpon him that is baptized P. The same signifieth vnto vs howe that of the death of the olde man the newe riseth as if our olde Adam after that he were drowned were risen againe a newe man and that all his olde filthines were drowned by the water of grace in the which he was plunged which is the bloode of Iesus Christe the true washer of regeneration M. I doe nowe vnderstand all this very well but is there any other proprietie to consider touching the water P. If we shuld make comparisō of all the other properties that it hath with the holy Ghost which it doth figure in Baptisme I could giue thée manie others from which I doe abstaine at this present seing that that which I haue said may suffice thée for the vnderstāding of the matter of Baptisme Of the admonition and figure that the faithfull haue of a Christian life in Baptisme M. HAst thou yet any thing to say touching this Sacrament P. I haue nowe to shewe thée what pattern and example wée haue there of a Christian life and of the dutie of a Christian and of true repentance which ought to be in him all the time of his life M. Expound all these to me P. Séeing that baptisme is to vs the Sacrament of regeneration of penaunce and of mortification wée are admonished by the same of the perpetuall penance that ought to be in vs of the mortification where by we ought to mortifie our earthly mēbers to the end that wée being dead to sinne may liue to God in iustice Of the Supper and why Iesus Christe did ordaine two signes for the same M. IT séemeth to mée nowe that I doe sufficiently vnderstand that matter of Baptisme and therfore lette vs procéede to the Supper P. The Supper is a Sacrament in the which Iesus Christ representeth to vs by the signe of breade and wine howe he hath giuen his bodie and his bloud to the deathe that hauyng reconciled vs vnto God he moughte bee our spirituall nouriture and mought cōfirme vs in the faith of the promisse whiche he had made vnto vs. M. For what cause hathe he represented his bodie and bloud by the bread and by the wyne P. To signifie vnto vs that euen as breade and wine are giuen to vs by God for our corporall nouriture euen so the bodye and bloud of Iesus Chryste is giuen vnto vs for spiritual foode M. And for what cause did Iesus Chryste ordeyne two signes in the supper but one in baptism Mought not the bread or the wine onely haue ben sufficient to represent this spirituall life without adding both of them P. As he hath ordeined the signe of the water whiche is very méete to represente that whiche in Baptisme he woulde represent vnto vs euen so he hath chosen for the Supper those signes that were most méet to signifie that which he wold haue signifyed in the same M. I doubte not at all of that P. And therfore albeit that by one onely signe as in Baptisme he coulde haue done all that whiche hath pleased him to do by two yet he woulde giue two for the better expressing of that whiche it pleased him to giue Of that whiche is speciall in the Supper wherein it differeth from baptisme and howe that all that is verye well represented in the bread and the wyne M. DEclare vnto mée then the properties whiche the breade and wine haue agréeable to the things the whiche they represent in the supper P. For the first thou must note and remember that whiche I haue alreadie touched that the supper hathe this proper vnto it that euen as baptisme is to vs a testimonie of our spiritual birth life which we obtayn by Iesus Christe euen so is the supper a sacrament and testimonie howe that God wil continue in vs that benefite whereof baptisme is to vs a Sacrament and will nourishe and entertayne vs in the same spirituall lyfe the which he signifieth vnto vs therin vnto the tyme that we haue the full enioying in heauen with Iesus Chryst M. I thinke than that to be the cause why Iesus Chryste would signifie those things to vs by the eating and drinking and by those things which are propre to nouriture P. It is euen so and for somuche as man can not lyue by meate only or drinke only except he haue them bothe togither no more is Iesus Chryst contented to ordeyne only the breade or only the wine for signes of the spirituall nouriture whiche wée haue in his Supper but would ordeine those two to giue vs to vnderstande that euen as he which hathe meate and drinke hath his whole nouriture euen so the faithefull haue in Iesus Chryst fully all that whiche is necessarie for the spiritual lyfe M. Is there yet none other reason why Iesus Chryst did ordeyn those two signes M. Yes for Iesus Christe hathe also by these two signes better expressed howe that he hath giuen his bodie and his lyfe to the deathe for vs thā if he had ordeined but one only in so much as he hath giuen one particuler signe to signifie his body and an other to signifye his bloude M. What further signification hath it P. To set the better before our eyes howe that he is in déede dead for vs in so much as his bloude was separated from his body and consequentlye his life and that he hath so loued vs that he hath not spared it for vs. How we must eate the body and fleshe of Iesus Christ and drinke his bloud in the Supper M. BVt séeing that the breade representeth vnto vs in the Supper the fleshe and bodie of Iesus Christ which is there gyuen vs for meate and that the wine representeth the bloude which is there gyuen vs for drink must wée there also eate the body of Iesus Christ and drinke hys bloude in the same
of the signes how God doth accomplishe by effect that which is signified as well by the worde as by the signes Of things to consider in the signes and in the signification of them in all Sacramentes M. WHat hast thou yet to saye of the sygnes and of their signification Peter Thou séest how that Iesus Chryst was not contented with the wordes only in the Supper but he added also therevnto the signes of the breade and of the wine as is that of the water in baptisme M. I demaund thée nothing of their signification For thou hast alredy declared it vnto me P. Thou hast only to note that these signes are not true signes without the things signified by them VVhether Hipocrites and Infidells do as vvell communicate in the Supper of the things signified by the signes as they do of the signes M. IF it be so that the signes be not vaine neyther in the supper nor yet in the other Sacraments without hauing with them the things which they signifie it thē followeth that whosoeuer receyueth the signes receyueth also the things signified by them and by that meane the infidells which are hypocrits do no lesse part take of the whole Sacramente than do the faithfull P. Thou concludest not well For when I say that the signes are not in the Sacraments without the thinges by them signified thou must vnderstād that on God his parte for he dothe not sette foorth his worde and sacraments to men without presenting vnto them also the things wherof he doth admonish them by the same Ma. How commeth it then to passe that all do not communicate alyke Pe. Bycause that all they to whome the gyftes of God are offered do not receyue them M. What is the cause that they do not receiue them P. Bicause they bring not fayth with them without the whiche no man can receiue them M. Thou wilt then say that they shut themselues from it by meane of their vnbeléefe and that it is not sufficient that the gifts of God bée presented vnto vs by his worde and hys sacraments if that forthwith they be not receiued and they can not be receiued but by meane of Faith which the infidels and hypocrites haue not P. Thou oughtest here to vnderstād that Iesus Christ may not be separated from his sprite séeing that it is so as none can receyue him but by his spirite euen so can hée not be receyued excepte he forthwith gyue hys holy spirite with him and doe make partakers of all these guiftes and graces all those whiche receiue him Mathevve Thou haste here yelded a greate reason Peter If it were not so there should be no difference betweene the faithfull and the infidell in the communion of GOD his Sacramentes and guyftes M. Yet thou confessest that notwythstandyng they may communicate of the outwarde signes as well as the other albeit they can not communicate of the thyngs signifyed by the signes Peter They maye there communicate well forsomuche as no mā may let them so long as they offer themselues as faithfull and that they be not discouered to the Churche for suche as they bée in sorte that they mought be vanquished of their vnworthinesse to seclude them wholly For if the things signified by the Sacramentes do not belong to them no more also doe belong the signes whiche signifie them Math. If they were then knowne of men to bée suche as they be before GOD they shoulde bée excommunicate to the ende they shoulde not approche Peter It is certayne And bycause that they are not knowne yf they were well aduysed they woulde of them selues forbeare for so much as they can not communicate of the very outward Sacramentes but to their condemnation bycause they are in no respect capable thereof wherfore they do but dishonour God and his Church prouoke daily more and more the wrath of God vpon them VVherfore are the breade and wyne called by the name of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ if they be not that body and bloud M. I Am satisfied touching that poynte but I haue yet some difficultie concerning that which thou hast said that the bread and the wine are not the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper and yet it séemeth that Iesus Christ saieth the contrarie cleane For he calleth them his body and his bloud by his owne wordes which thou hast euē now alledged P. But he meaneth not thereby that the breade wine are his body and bloude in proper substance in suche sort as their substance is cōuerted into the substance of his bodye and bloud M. For what cause then vseth he that maner of speache and hath not rather vsed some other more playne P. There are chiefely two reasons not only for that he vsed it but also why that maner of speache is more proper and more plaine in that matter than any other M. Which is the first of these reasons P. It is that when the holy scripture speaketh of Sacramentes it doth willingly name the signes with the names of the thinges whiche are signified by them And therfore Iesus Christ would accōmodate himselfe to that speache which the holy Ghost hath alwaye accustomed to vse in the Church bycause that it is familiar and easye to vnderstand to God his people with whō he hath to doe and vnto whom he doth addresse his doctrine M. And why is it that the holy Ghost speaketh rather this lāguage than otherwise P. Bycause it is more agréeable to this matter than any other M. For what cause P. For so muche as the Lorde will giue vs to vnderstand by suche phrases of speache that albeit that the signes of the Sacramentes be not the very same thinges which are signified by them yet notwithstanding they are not without them Of the manner in the vvhiche the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe are present in the supper and are communicate to the faithfull as vvell as the signes vvhich represent them M. IN what sorte then are they there if the signes remayn stil in their own substance P. Albeit they be not there by a naturall corporall materiall presence as the visible signes whiche are there giuen to vs that notwithstanding they be thereby a diuine spirituall vertue and maner wherby God by the vertue of his holy spirite doth make partaker of them all suche as by true and liuely faithe doe receiue his word and his sacraments by which he cōfirmeth the same in our harts Of the substantiall and naturall coniunction of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ with the bread and vvith the vvine of the Supper M. BVt if the breade and the wine doe not chaunge their substaunce and neyther be transubstantiated conuerted nor changed into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste may not then the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste be well ioyned to them in their owne proper substāce nature P. Ther are among those which reiect the false doctrine of transubstantiation
by the whiche we haue bene sometyme taught that the very substāce of the bread and of the wine was chaunged into the very substance of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryst which ar of the opinion that thou now settest forth M. And why do they rather folow that opinion than the other P. Bicause that they know well that opinion to be too grosse And therfore they haue recourse to that other maner of presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the Supper whereof thou haste now made mention M. And what inconueniente fyndest thou in that opinion Peter I fynde not muche lesse therein than in that of Transubstantiation Math. Thou canste not saye at the leaste but that they whiche followe it doe take from the Supper the signes of the breade and of the wyne for so much as they ioyne them wyth the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste the whiche they signifie Peter No more are they also so greatlye different in other matters to them that mayntain transubstantiation And therfore may we lawfully call the opiniō of such men cōsubstantiation M. What vnderstandest thou by this word of Consubstantiation P. As they which haue forged the transubstātiation do vnderstand by the same a changing of substance into an other euen so by the name of consubstantiation a man may vnderstande the coniunction of diuers substances togither Of the agreement that is betwene this opinion that of transubstantiation M. DEclare vnto me then wherin they do agrée and wherin they doe differ Peter For the first if they doe vnderstande that the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe bée wyth the breade and the wine in their own nature and substance and by a naturall corporall and materiall maner as the bread and the wyne are there they agrée therin with the erroure of transubstantiation M. It séemeth to mée that they drawe well to one poynte sauing that they make no transubstantiation nor chaunge of the breade and of the wine into the body and bloude of Iesus Christ P. Thou séest it plainely by that whiche we haue alredy sayde thou mayest well vnderstand that such a naturall and corporall presence of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper should be cleane contrary to the nature of a spirituall nouriture the whiche is there set foorth vnto vs and likewise to the māner of eating of the body and the flesh and the drinking of the bloud of Iesus Christ according to the whiche they may be eatē and dronkē for spirituall meate drinke The seauententh Dialogue is of the communication of Iesus Christ as wel in Baptisme as in the Supper VVherevnto baptisme and the signification thereof may serue to giue vs to vnderstand in vvhat sorte it behoueth vs to be nourished by the body and bloud of Iesus Christ MATHEVV I Haue well vnderstoode that thou hast sayde that we must be nourished with spirituall meate and nouriture into eternall life and that by a spirituall maner agreable to the spirituall birth and life into the which we are regenerate by baptisme and according to the testimonie of God which is set foorth vnto vs in the same concerning our regeneration P. That whiche thou sayest maye serue vs very much to the vnderstanding of the matter which we now hādle For thou doest wel know that we are not regenerate in baptisme by any corporall or material séede of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christe nor by any naturall manner as we are naturally begotten by our fathers mothers M. I know well also that we may not enter againe into our mothers womb as Nicodeme said to Iesus christ to be borne a new once more as we are already once borne P. And therefore I doubt not but that thou doest well vnderstande that that regeneration and newe birth is wrought by a séede incorruptible spiritual and diuine by the which we are begotten into the Churche by the vertue of the holy Ghoste by whome we are regenerate into a new life In vvhat sorte vve do communicate of the body bloud of Iesus christ in baptism M. IT is not also said that Iesus Christ doth giue his body and his bloud in Baptisme as he doth in the supper like wise the water is not called therein the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe as Iesus Christ doth in the Supper call the bread the wine by the name of them P. Albeit the the water be not there called in baptisme by that name dost thou thinke for all that that the body and bloude of Iesus Christ be not there distributed and communicated vnto thée in the same as well as in the Supper M. I do not so vnderstand it P. Thou wilte then ordeyne a Baptisme withoute Iesus Christe M. Wherfore P. Bycause thou cāst not haue Iesus Christ except thou haue him wholy and very God and very man and that thou haue true communion with his body with his bloud not only in the supper but also in baptisme M. Shewe me the cause thereof P. It is bycause that the Baptisme doth no lesse sende vs to the deathe and passion and to the body and bloud of Iesus Christe than doth the Supper for somuch as that is proper to al sacramēts VVhat difference there is betvvene the baptisme and the Supper touching the communion of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ M. IT séemeth to me that thou speakest against that whiche thou hast sayde heretofore touching the difference which thou hast put betwene baptisme and the Supper for it séemeth that thou speakest now as though baptisme the supper were one very Sacramente and that there were no difference betwene them P. Thou makest an euill conclusion For albeit that we doe as well participate of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in baptisme as in the Supper yet notwithstanding there is difference in the participation and in the manner thereof in respect of the benefites of Iesus Christ whiche are signified and communicated vnto vs as wel in the one of the sacramēts as in the other M. I haue not thē wel vnderstoode thée yet heretofore and therfore declare vnto me more easily that whiche thou now speakest of P. Although the body of Iesus Christe be not giuen vnto vs in baptisme as for spirituall foode as it is in the Supper that notwithstanding it is there giuen vnto vs in very déede as a garment of innocencie of Iustice and of holynesse to couer all our sinnes before god And therefore S. Paule saith that all those which are baptised haue put on them Iesus Christ M. And of the bloud what sayest thou P. Albeit that it be not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme as for drinke as it is in the supper yet notwithstāding it is there giuen vnto vs for a spirituall washing of our soules and consciences whereby Iesus Christe dothe purifie and clense his Church in this lauer of
regeneration to the ende that he may make it pure cleane withoute spotte or wrinkle and a holy and glorious Churche M. I did neuer yet so well vnderstande these two pointes nor yet the diuersitie and difference that thou hast made betwene the benefites of Iesus Christe and the Baptisme and the Supper whiche are Sacramentes as now I do vnderstande all these things In vvhat sorte the faithfull in baptisme do put on Iesus Christ and are vvashed vvith his bloud P. WHen I tell thée that the baptisme declareth vnto vs howe that Iesus Christe is set foorthe vnto vs in baptisme for a robe of innocencie Iustice holynes and that we cloth our selfe with him by meane of the same I do not thinke thée to be of so grosse an vnderstanding to thinke that the faithfull do put on Iesus Christ naturally and corporally as a man putteth on a garment or a cloke M. I should be very grosse if I so vnderstoode it P. How doest thou then vnderstand it M. That euen as a garmente or a cloke do serue to couer the body euen so do the innocencie iustice and holynesse of Iesus Christe serue vs to couer our sinnes at the iudgemente of God to the ende that there appere no one spotte of them in his sighte P. And touching the bloude of Iesus Christe doest thou thinke that oure soules and consciences be washed and made cleane in Baptisme as one would with water wash a body in a bath or ryuer or else shéetes in a bucke Mathevv Thou makest here with me goodly discourses I thinke there is none so beastly whiche doth not well knowe that the bloud of Iesus Christe is called the washing of soules and of consciences not as though they must be washed and dipped in the bloud of Iesus Christe as one woulde wash and dippe a body that he woulde washe and make cleane or some other suche like thing but that the holy Ghost speaketh so to giue vs to vnderstande that whiche thou hast sayde to witte what the water of baptisme signifieth concerning the washing and purification of our soules and consciences in the bloud of Iesus Christ VVhat greater reason there is to communicate corporally of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper than in Baptisme P. THow doest aunswere me verye well but if thou find it strange that a man shuld say that they which are baptised haue put on Iesus Christ bodily as a garmente and are washed with hys bloud as with a materiall bath why shouldest thou not finde it as straunge or more straunge that a man should say that the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe are naturally and bodily eaten and drunken in the Supper as are the bread the wine which are the signes M. Thou makest me to consider somewhat more déepely of this matter than heretofore I did P. It is a matter well to be thoughte on For if that in Baptisme we haue no carnall communication with the body and bloud of Iesus Christ but only a spiritual I sée not what greter reason there is to haue rather in the Supper a carnal communication with him than in Baptisme considering that the supper dependeth of baptisme and that it is as a more ample confirmation of the possession of the benefites of Iesus Christe into the whiche wée beginne to enter by Baptisme and doe continue by the Supper M. I finde thy reasons very good P. Thou shalte finde them yet better if thou do consider how muche that grosse and carnall opinion doth disagrée as wel with the nature of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryste as wyth the faith that we oughte to haue in his ascention into heauen and of his seate at the right hand of God and of his spirituall and diuine presence and vertue by the whiche he is euer present in his church and doth guide and gouerne it eternally Hovve the corporall and carnall presence of the bodie and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper greeth not with the true nature of them M. EXpounde this same vnto me somewhat more at large P. For the first to what purpose is it to thinke that the bodie of Iesus Chryst is chewed and eaten and sent into the stomacke and frō thence downe into the bellie as is the bread whiche signifieth it in the Supper and that his bloud is also drunken as is the wyne which is the signe For bée it that thou vnderstand that the breade and the wyne be conuerted into the substance of the bodie and bloud or else that the bodie be eaten with the bread and the bloud drunken with the wine yet is there still greate absurditie cleane contrary to the nature of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste M. What contrarietie fyndest thou therin P. Séeing that Iesus Christ hath a very true naturall bodie in euery respecte lyke vnto oures as touchyng the corporall substaunce sinne excepte it is certaine and true that hée is not bodily and naturally not only in the heauen and in the earthe at one tyme but also neyther in infinite places For he hathe not a bodie whiche filleth the heauen and the earth as dothe his diuinitie but hathe a bodie whyche can not be a true and verie bodie if hée be not in some certayne place agreeable to his nature to his glorie and celestiall maiestie Hovve the glorifying of the bodie of Iesus Chryst doth not chaunge at all the substantiall nature propre substaunce of the same M. THou speakest of the bodie of Iesus Chryste as though he were in euery respecte like vnto oures and that he were not glorified at all as ours shall be also after the Resurrection of our bodies P. Albéeit that the bodie of Iesus be glorifyed by his Resurrection and Ascention into heauen yet followeth it not for all that that he hath lost the proprieties of his humane nature and that his corporall substance is chaunged in suche sorte that it is conuerted into diuine nature or that he is in suche sort transfourmed that he is infinite to be in euerye place or that he is so multiplied that for one bodie he hath many or an infinite number as necessarily it must be if the errour wherof wée nowe speake shoulde haue place Of the contrarietie that is betvvene the corporall presence of Iesus Chryst in the Supper and his ascention into heauen M. BVt they which maynteyn thye opinion say that these things maye not be considered naturally but supernaturally and that they do surpasse the capacitie of all mans vnderstanding P. I graunte them all that But why is it then that they forge vs a corporall and naturall presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the stéede of a supernaturall and spiritual presence M. They say that the same corporall and naturall presence doth not at all hinder the supernaturall and spirituall Pet. Albeit that they saye it it doth not therfore followe that it is so And on the other syde I
sée not howe they will agrée their opinion with the articles of oure faythe by whiche wée doe confesse not only that Iesus Christe is gone vp into heauen but also that he is there sette at the ryght hande of the Father and that from thence hée shall come in Iudgemente by a visyble and corporall presence euen as he went vp visibly corporally according to the verie testimonie of the Angels and also of Sainte Peter who hath sayd that the Heauen muste néedes receyue hym vntill the tyme of the restoring of all thyngs wherof God hath spoken by the mouthe of all his Prophetes since the beginning The eightenth Dialogue is of the presence of Iesus Christe in heauen and in the supper and in his Church VVhether the ascention of Iesus Christe be a true ascention or no or else if he made himselfe only inuisible MATHEVV IT séemeth to me that all that whiche thou hast spoken of the ascētion of Iesus Christ is nothing against the opiniō of those against whom thou hast so long disputed for they denie not that Iesus Christe is gone vp into Heauē neyther that he shall come visiblie and bodily to iudge the liuing and the dead euen as thou hast said P. How do they then agrée their doctrine with this confession M. They alleadge two things vppon this pointe The firste is that the heauen and the right hand of God where Iesus Christe is do stretche ouer all The other is that the comming of Iesus Christ which is made by the sacrament the Supper is inuisible wherfore albeit that he bée there bodily in the propre substance of his bodie bloud yet is he not there visibly but inuisibly P. If they make no space betwéene the earth and the heauen and that they will stretche out the heauen euen to the earth in suche sort that Chryst hath not absented him from the earth as touchyng his bodie and that he didde retire himselfe when he went vp into heauen it may not then be sayde that he is ascended as the Scripture witnesseth but that he hathe alwayes remayned vppon earthe without departing from thence agaynst that whiche he himselfe did prophecie to his disciples It muste also be sayde that hée should then haue made hym selfe inuisible to them and that he were stil yet on earth not visible but inuisible Hovve that the presence corporall of Iesus Christ in the Supper may haue no place excepte he haue an infinite bodie or manye M. I Know not what to say to thée herein For if it were so then shoulde there be no true ascētion of Iesus Christ into heauen P. Albeit that it were so yet must it néedes be that he haue a body infinite to be in so many places at ones or else that he haue an infinite number of bodies to be in so many places at once as they wold haue him M. I vnderstand well that if Iesus Chryste had suche a bodie that his humane nature wer infinite as is his diuine it could be no more an humane nature nether could there be any differēce betwene the one the other Of the inuisible comming of the body of Iesus Christe P. AS cōcerning that which thou hast sayde of the inuisible comming of Iesus Chryste where is it in the holie Scriptures that they fynde suche a comming in the which Iesus Chryst cōmeth from heauen inuisibly in the proper substance of his bodie M. I can not tell for as thou haste alredy decelard in the articles of faith we speake but of two corporall commings of Iesus Chryst Of the spirituall comming of Iesus Christ P. I Wil grant them that there is an inuisible cōming of Iesus Christ by the whiche hée commeth dayely inuisibly to all But that is not in the proper and naturall substaunce of hys natural bodie but by his diuyne vertue whereby notwithstandyng hée maketh vs in deede partakers of his bodie and of his bloud and doth nourish vs as he doth testify the same vnto vs in his holy Supper doth the same by the vertue of his holy spirite the whiche ioyneth vs vnto him without being néedefull that Iesus Christe descend or ascend in his owne body to make vs partakers M. But howe may this be done forsomuche as the body of Iesus Chryste is in heauen and that wée be on the earth and that ther is so great distāce betwene the one and the other P. Seing that this coniunction is not naturall nor carnall but supernaturall and spiritual it is not at all harde for the holy Ghosts in such sort to ioyn the earth and the heauen together and to drawe vp our hearts into heauen euen to Iesus Christe M. I know well that there is nothyng harde nor impossible to God. P. In lyke manner is it not harde for Iesus Chryste to make the vertue and efficacie of his bodie the sacrifice of the same which he hath offered for vs to come euen to vs without being néedefull that he descende bodily from heauen to come to vs. M. I graunte to thée all that Hovve that the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the supper is contrary to the diuine vertue that is in him to communicate his gifts and graces to his Church P. IT must necessarily be that it be so for if he coulde haue no communion with vs and communicate himselfe to vs without comming downe from heauē bodily and without that he were with vs corporally presente his vertue shuld not be so great as it is nor should it be so wel set foorth nor in so great effect M. Is that the cause why he saide to his disciples it is expedient that I go for if I go not the comforter which is the holy Ghost will not come P. It is certaine that by these words he would giue his disciples to vnderstand two things M. Which be they P. The first is that his corporal presence did holde them still fixed in the earth and did hinder them by the meane of their infirmitie rudenes to cōprehend vnderstand that his kingdome was spiritual not carnall as they thought it to bée M. Which is yet the other pointe P. It is that he was not come vppon earth there to raigne by a corporall presence but to retire his body into heauen that he would raigne by his holy spirit by his spirituall diuine vertue among his according to the promise which he made them whē he said when you shall be gathered together two or thrée in my name I am in the middest of you And againe I am with you euen to the consummation of the worlde Of the spirituall and diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Church and of the vertue of the same M. THou vnderstandest then these passages of the spiritual diuine presence of Iesus Christ in his Churche P. No man may otherwise take them And therfore Iesus Christ hath said to shewe that great power which he had Al power is giuē me
both in heauē and in earth S. Paule in like fort hath written that he is ascended aboue all the heauens to the ende he mought fill al things that he mought fulfill all in the same M. Doest thou vnderstand that he doth accomplishe and fill all things not by his corporall presence but by his spirituall diuine presēce and vertue P. We may not otherwise vnderstand it if we do beleue that Iesus christ hath a very natural body that he be in déede gone vp into the heauens For as we haue alredy said as ther is no reason to giue him many bodies to be in manye places at a time euē so is it ouer strange to giue hym a bodye which may fill the heauen and the earth Hovve that the corporall presence of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christ is contrary to the true communion of them in the Supper M. I Doe now remember that thou hast alredy said that the body the bloud of Iesus Christ could not be separated frō his spirit frō whence I do conclude that the body and bloud of christ Iesus cānot be receiued but to the saluation of them which doe receiue it P. None may doubt thereof M. It followeth then further that infidells cannot receiue them forsomuch as they cannot receiue them except they receiue their saluation the whyche they cannot obtaine without faith wherof they are void P. This which thou sayest dothe yet confirme more and more all that whiche we haue handled heretofore concerning the corporall presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper M. It is also the cause why I did againe set foorth thys matter For if the body and the bloude of Iesus Christ be corporally in the supper in suche sorte that whosoeuer receiueth bodily the bread and the wine therein receiueth also the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ corporally there shall follow thereof many things which séeme to me very contrary as well to the office of Iesus christ as to the nature of this Sacrament of the Supper P. Thou sayest very truthe and I am very glad to here of thée that which thou thinkest M. For the firste we shall be constrayned to confesse that a man maye in the Supper receiue the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe without faith and without his spirite for the vnfaithfull whiche shall receiue the bread and the wine shall no lesse receiue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe than the faithfull P. Beholde there a very straunge consequencie M. Moreouer if a man may receyue them without faithe they whiche shall receiue them in such sorte shal receiue thē either to their saluation or condemnation if they receiue thē to their saluation it must néedes followe that a man maye obtaine saluation without faith if they do receiue thē to their condemnation it must then followe that the body and the bloude of Iesus Christe do bring in this Sacramente against their nature deathe in stéede of life whiche is also against the nature of the Sacramente for it was not ordeyned to bring death to man but life VVhether a man maye conclude of the vvords of Sainct Paule that a man may receyue the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ in the supper to condemnation P. THou concludest very well but they which houlde the opinion againste the whiche we dispute at this presente make no difference to affirme that the infidels receiue in the supper the body the blud of Iesus Christ that they receyue thē to their condēpnation For they build themselues vpō that which s Paule hath saide That who so eateth in the supper the bread drincketh the wine of the lorde vnworthily doth eate and drinke his condempnation M. I know well that those mē affirme that which thou saist But I cannot well agrée their opinion with the matters the which we haue alredy handled And as touching that which they alledge of S. Paule he sayth not who so shall eate the body and drincke the bloud vnworthily shal receiue his condempnation but he saith he that shall eate of this bread shall drinke of this cup. P. Thou hast also to note beside this that there is difference betwene receiuing the supper vnworthily to receiue it without faith and as touching the word of condempnation it may be also taken in diuers maners but wée will now no longer dwell vpon these two pointes It is sufficient for vs to knowe that the bodye and the bloud of Iesus Christ cannot bée truely receyued but by the faythfull Of the principall difference that maye be betvveene the transsubstanciation of the bread and of the vvine into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus christ and the bodily coniunction of them together M. I Do well vnderstand by all the reasons testimonies which thou hast brought out of the holy scriptures that we may seke no corporal nor carnall presēce of Iesus christ neither in the supper nor yet in all thys visible worlde but only a spirituall and diuine presence Wherfore whē I haue well considered the whole I finde no great difference betwene them that affirme that the bread and the wine be conuerted transubstanciated into the bodie blud of Iesus christ in the supper by the vertue of the sacramentall wordes those which affirme that albeit that the bread the wine remayne still in their owne substāce yet notwithstāding the body blud of Iesus christ be there also present with thē in their proper and natural substāce not only spiritually but also corporally substancially as are the bread the wine P. There is no great difference but in that that the one sort thinking to auoid the absurdities which follow the opinion of the others do fall into other absurdities which are nothing lesse of the which we will no more speake here bycause the matter woulde be to long whereof we haue alredy sufficiently spoken Of the vnion that is betvvene Iesus Christ and his members signified by the breade and the vvine in the Supper M. I Am very well contented for thys time with that which thou hast said and therefore shewe me now what properties the bread and the wine haue yet which are agreable to this Sacramente of the Supper beside that whiche thou hast already said P. I haue already sayd that those signs were agreable to this sacrament bycause they be apte to represent the spirituall nouriture by the bodily M. I doe very well remember thys pointe P. Thou hast also to note vppon the same that as one lofe and one vessell of wine are made of many graines gathered togither euen so doe they in the Supper represente vnto vs how that al the children of God which are dispersed are gathered broughte togither in one and vnited with Iesus Christ their head by his deathe as Saincte Iohn doth witnesse M. Thou wilte then saye that that vniō which is made of many graines in one lofe or in one wine