seconde P. Touching his humane nature M. And the thirde P. Concerning the vnion of the two natures Of the faith of the Christians concerning the diuine and humane natures of Iesus Christe M. WHat must we beléeue of his diuine nature P. That he is very God without beginning and withoute ende of one essence with the father and that he is his eternall word wisedome M. And cōcerning his humane nature P. That he is very man hauing a very mans bodie of our fleshe of oure blend bones a very humane soule as other mē haue and that he was made in euery point like vnto vs sinne excepted Hovv the diuine and humaine natures vvhich are in the person of Iesus Christ do not make two Iesus Christs but one only M. WHat canst thou yet say of the vnion of these two natures beside that whiche thou hast alredy spoken when thou handledst the office of mediatoure of Iesus Christe P. It is that they be so vnited togither that they remayne alwayes in their very naturall in one very person M. What meanest thou thereby P. That being so vnited they make vs not two Iesus Christes to witte the one God and the other man but one only whiche is very God and very man togither in one onely person euen as the body and soule of man make one onely mā and one only person and not twaine M. This vnion of these two natures thē is very necessarie to oure saluation P. Thou maist well know that as well by that which we haue alredy sayd touching this matter as by the office whiche was assigned vnto Iesus Christ by his father For there is no one Iesus Christ whiche being but only God coulde haue saued man nor coulde haue dyed for them and an other being but only man might dye for them but coulde not haue power to saue them nor to beare the iudgement of God for their sinnes VVhether the diuine nature be in Iesus Christ in stead of the soule or else that he hath a very humane soule M. DOest thou meane by this that the diuine nature of Iesus Christe is in stead of a soule to the humaine nature P. If the diuine nature were in stead of a soule to the humane nature and that Iesus Christe had no very humane soule he should be no true and perfect man. M. For what cause P. Bicause that the principall parte of man whiche is the soule shuld be wanting in him for this cause I haue saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was very man compounded of a very humane body and a very humane soule How the eternall worde of God became fleslie M. THou hast saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was the eternall worde of God. Now Sainct Iohn saith that that worde whiche is very God eternall became flesh Pe. What meanest thou by that Doest thou thinke that the same worde of God was conuerted into fleshe in suche sorte that it was no more the eternall worde of God but fleshe and that the Sonne of God which is that word of God being God before that time did so become man that he is no more God but man only M. Thou hast giuen me well to vnderstande by that whiche thou hast euen now said of the diuinitie and humanitie of Iesus Christ that we may not so thinke of him but bycause Saincte Iohn maketh mention but of the flesh when he saith that that word became flesh a man might thinke that he spake but of the body and not at al of the soule but that this worde of God vnited with the body was to it in stead of a soule P. If Sainct Iohn had mente so he wold rather haue said as it is elsewhere said in the holy scripturs that Iesus Christe had taken the séede of Abraham to witte our flesh and not the Angells M. Why is it then that he maketh mention but of the flesh seing that it is the least and most vile parte of man P. I can yeld vnto thee chiefly two reasons M. Which is the first P. It is bycause the holy Scriptures do take oft times a part for the whole And therefore it taketh now the flesh now the soule for the whole man complete M. Which is the seconde reason P. It is that when the holy Scripture doth vse the name of fleshe to signifie the whole man she vseth that manner of speach to admonish men of the infirmities that are in them to the end they may vnderstande that they are but men mortall and not Gods immortall M. Hath Sainct Iohn had regarde therevnto whē he said that the Sonne of God was made fleshe P. There is no doubt of it But it is in an other regarde For albeit that Iesus were very god as touching hys diuine nature that he toke our flesh without any spot of sinne when he was made mā that he hath vnited his diuine nature with the humane nature yet for al that he was so exempte frō all sin that notwithstāding he wold be subiect without sinne to al the infirmities and miseries wherevnto men are subiecte bycause of theyr sinnes M. Thou meanest then that thys worde of flesh emporteth all that same and that it doth better expresse in what manner and to what condition and ende the sonne of God did take our nature to him and was made man than if he had spoken otherwise P. It is euen so and therefore he doth also call himselfe so oftentimes the sonne of man to giue vs to vnderstande that he is not only a very naturall man descended of the race of Adam of the which al others are descended but also that he made himselfe subiecte to all the miseries and necessities of man whervnto men are subiect always excepted any spotte of sinne Of the conception of Iesus Christ and of the nature of his fleshe M. NOwe séeing that that humayne flesh which Iesus Christ hath taken for vs is exempte from all sinne where is then that he toke it Did he bring it from Heauen with hym or else did he take it vppon the Earthe P. When thou confessest that hée was conceiued of the holy Ghost and borne of the virgine Mary thou confessest that he toke it vppon earth in the wombe of that holye virgin M. But coulde he not haue passed thorow the womb of the virgin with a heauenly fleshe withoute taking any thing of hir fleshe P. If he had brought from heauen that flesh which he hath and that it were a flesh of a heauenly and diuine nature which he should not haue taken in the wombe of the virgin and of the proper fleshe and bloud of hir we could not say truly that she had conceyued and borne him and consequently that he were very man of oure proper fleshe and bloud whiche we haue of oure first father Adam VVherevnto the genealogie of Iesus Christe according to the fleshe dothe serue vs. M. I Thinke S. Mathew and S. Luke woulde giue vs to vnderstande
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
therfore man shall leaue father and mother and shall sticke to his wyfe If ther be great difference betwene the nature of the man and of the woman and that of other liuing creatures cōcerning the very bodie the difference is yet much more greate concerning the soule forsomuche as the other lyuing creatures were not created to the image and lykelynesse of God as man was wherefore they haue not a soule of a heauenly and diuine nature as he hath P. Thou séest then alredy here the vnion and communion of Nature that man and woman haue togither as well of body as of soule and the difference that is betwene them and all other liuing creatures in all these two pointes M. I do nowe vnderstande well this vnion and communion of nature whiche is betwene man and woman withoute the whiche they coulde not be allied togither by marriage as man and wife P. Thou oughtest in like sorte to vnderstande that we maye haue also no communicatoin with Iesus Christe if we haue not first the same communion of nature with him whereby he was made man lyke vnto vs as touching the nature and substance of the flesh M. I haue well vnderstood that which thou hast alredy sayde to that purpose concerning the communion of nature the whiche he hath of nature with vs and not at all with the Angells Of an other more speciall vniō and coniunction which is proper to marriage vvhich is betvvene Iesus Christ and his Churche M. NOw it is not inough to be vnited ioyned togither by mariage to be of one very humane nature that the one be masle the other femasle but it is also requisite that there be a more neare and a more speciall vnion and coniunction M What is that other coniunction P. It is a coniunction which is made by aliance by the whiche the man and the woman that are vnited ioyned togither by the same haue a speciall communion betwene thē the which the husbande hath not with other women nor the woman with other men M. I do wel vnderstand that ther is no suche coniunction and communion of body and goods and of al things among al other men and women that are not married togither as ther is betwene the man and the wife by the alliance and coniunction of marriage that is betwene them P. It is very true For this vnion and cōmunion is suche that the husbande hathe not power of his owne body but the wife as also the wife hath not power of hirs but the husband M. If there be such communion and coniunction of body there is no doubte but it is also of all good euill that may happē vnto thē togither P. It is euē so by the special cōmuniō which Iesus Christ hath with the faithful that the faithfull haue with hym by the power of the holy ghost which ioyneth thē with him by true lyuing faith M. Thou meanest then that there is so great differēce betwene the cōmuniō that is betwéen Iesus christ the faithful in respect of the vnfaithful as is betwen that which is betwene the mā the wife in respect of other mē womē P. It is euen so For the only cōmuniō of nature maketh not cōmuniō of body goodes betwene al men and women as doth the coniunction of marriage the whiche the husband the wife haue togither M. Thou wilt thē say in like sorte that the communion of nature the which Iesus Christ hath commō with all mē doth not carie with it such communiō of al things as doth that which he hath special with the faithful by means of the faith which thei haue in him P. the vnbeleuers haue nothing cōmō with Iesus christ but that thei ar mē of the same human nature but the faithfull haue this more which is the principall that all that they haue is common to Iesus Christ with them and that whiche Iesus Christe hath is common to them also M. What is it that Iesus Christe may take of them forsomuch as they be all none other than poore and sinfull men P. He taketh vppon him their sinnes and the paine whiche is due vnto them as though he himselfe had committed them and that he were guiltie to discharge and delyuer them M. He taketh then nothing of vs but onely the euill whiche is in vs P. What other thyng may he take séeing that there is none other thing in vs But the nature of the alliance and communion which we haue with him thorough faith bringeth it for otherwise ther should be no perfect communion and so the alliance shoulde not be full if there were no participation of good and euill suche as it shoulde and oughte to be among those whiche be allyed M. Then on the contrary it muste be following the nature of this communion and alliance that wée receiue of Iesus Christe the good things which are in him as he doth the euill that is in vs P. It is so to be vnderstode M. Behold a communion and alliance which is greatly to our aduauntage P. It is wholly to oure aduantage and therfore it should so much the more inflame vs in the loue of God and rauishe and carrie vs away in admiration of his goodnesse of Iesus Christ our Lord and of that most excessiue loue wherewith he hathe loued vs. M. That same communion is it the same that is in the Symbole of the Apostles vpon the whiche we are at this presente the communion of Sainctes P. It is the verye same And bicause it is made by the power of the holy Ghoste we will speake more largely of it when we shal speake of the holy Ghost and of the Churche How that Iesus Christe can not be the sauiour of mankinde vnlesse hee haue as well an humane soule as an humane bodie M. I Vnderstand now well by that whiche thou hast expoūded vnto me concerning the humane nature of Iesus Christ that wée could haue no saluation by him if he had not a verye bodie of oure fleshe and substance and that we were fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bones and except we had suche alliance with hym as ther is betwene the husbād the wife But I would gladly that thou diddest shew me somthing more plainly the causes for the which it is also requisite for our saluation that Iesus Christe haue an humane soule as wel as an humane body P. Euen as we could not be saued if he had not suffered in our humane fleshe and borne the paine for vs whiche we haue deserued by our sinnes it is euen the like concerning the soule M. For what cause P. For bicause that if he had suffred but in our bodie in our flesh he should not then haue satisfied but in our flesh and in our body and for them only and not for the soule And so shoulde it haue come to passe the bodie should bée saued and not the
of man. P. But wilt thou denie that he is a very mā before he be come to that age M. I am not yet wel resolued howe to answer thée to this demaūd P. It shal be easy for thée to resolue if thou cōsider what it is to be a man what is his nature for thou canste not denie that who so hath an humane body a soule participāt of reason vnderstanding is a man. M. I graunt it P. No more canst thou denie that a chylde howe yong soeuer he be is compounded of suche a bodie and suche a soule notwithstanding that men do not yet sée in effecte in him so great a perfection of the bodie and of reason and vnderstanding and of other gifts as wel of the bodie as of the spirite as in a perfecte man. M. I do wel vnderstand that thou wilt say that albeit a child may grow both in bignesse force discretion prudence knowledge in such like vertues therby to attaine to greater perfection yet notwithstanding this same letteth not at all but that he is alreadie a very man. P. No for somuche as he hath in him all the partes that make a verie man and the séedes of all things required in mans nature notwythstanding that the frutes as yet appeare not for albéeit that a thing begone be not yet fully perfected it followeth not for all that but that the beginnings are true and sounde and that it is true and perfect forsomuch as is alreadie of it M. Thou wilt then saye in lyke sorte that albeit that repentaunce faith and charitie be not in vs so greate so perfect that no more may be wished for yet for all that they leaue not to be true and whole prouided that wée haue the true séedes therof in vs and the true beginnings of all the partes required in the same P. Thou hast very well cōprehended that whiche I would haue saide And forasmuch as all these things are alredy begon in vs by the grace of God we do dayly continue the reading of the Gospell and the administration of the Sacramentes to the ende we may daily growe more more in that which is alredy begon in vs and that we may be dayly the better confirmed to witte in true repentance and true faith charitie and in all the other gifts of god euen vntil the time that from the infancie in the whiche wée now are cōcerning these gifts and graces we do come euen to the age of a perfect mā and that we do therein dayly profite as the childe dothe dayly growe vntill the time that he be a perfect man. Hovv greatly necessarie the ministerie of the Church and prayer is for al men during this life M. I Am now wel resolued touching this pointe whereby I do conclude that there is in the world no man so perfecte who hath not alwayes néede of the ministery of the church of al the partes and things the which it comprehendeth P. I haue yet forgottē to tel thée that with the diligence that we ought to vse in the studie of the holy scriptures communiō of the sacramentes to the end the graces of god may be dayly encreased more more in vs we haue also the inuocation of the name of God prayer the which serueth vs greatly to that ende wherfore we ought therein to be very attentiue continuall M. Seing that thou art now come vpon the matter of inuocation prayer mée thinketh it were good that wée dyd speake somwhat amply of it For it séemeth to mée that we haue spoken very litle of it as in passing it ouer when that thou gauest me as in briefe the exposition of the commaundements of the law vpō the which thou didst briefly declare vnto mée how that those of the first table did comprehend faith the inuocation of the name of god which procéedeth from the same as the true frute and true witnesse of the Faith. Of the discipline of the church and of the principall partes of the same P. I Had determined to haue spokē somwhat more fully for so much as Iesus Christ hath giuen a certaine forme rule But bicause wée haue yet to speake of the discipline of the Church that it is so ioyned with the ministery of the same that it cānot bée wel ruled nor conserued without that discipline wée wil first speake so farre as the matter that wée handle nowe requireth it and then afterwarde we will conclude the whole by the inuocation of the name of God and by praier The. 20. dialogue is of the discipline censures and consistories of the Churche Of the discipline of the Church and of the principall partes of the same M. SEyng wée are come to the point of the discipline of the church declare vnto mée then what thou meanest by the same P. I vnderstande the gouernement and the rule by the whych God will that his Churche be gouerned according to the order which he hath ordeyned in it by his word to entertaine it in true religion and to take away slaunders M. What is that rule and that order Pe. There be chiefly thrée pointes to consider M. Which is the firste P. The regard that must be had to the doctrine assemblies of the Church to the end that the worde of God and the sacraments be administred as they ought to be aboue al things that do appertaine are requisite to the seruice of God. M. Whiche is the secōd point P. The regard that must be had to the life and manners of euery man. M. Which is the thirde P. It is not altogither of so greate importance for it concerneth only certaine exercises which sometime are required in the Church as are fastings other certaine ceremonies the whiche according to the necessities and circumstaunces of times and of places may serue for the better making of men to do their dutie and office to God. Of the chiefe things vvherevppon the discipline of the Church ought to vvatche M. SEing that thou sayest that the two first pointes be the most necessary declare vnto me the things the which are most to be considered in them P. Forsomuche as the word of God is ordeyned to teache admonishe comforte exhorte rebuke and to correct euery man as it shal be néedefull it is necessary that there be censures and watches in the Churche to watche and to take héede how euery man doth behaue himselfe as well in respecte of doctrine as of life and whereof euery man hath néede to prouide for the same as the word of God doth require Of the censures and ancients of the Church and of the maner of the policie of the same M. AL that whiche thou sayest doth it not belong to the office of the pastors and ministers which haue charge of the administration of the worde of God and of the Sacramentes and of all the Church P. I graūt it But there are chiefly two causes why it is
procéede Wherfore if there be any sinne that deserueth to be accompted sinne it is that same Of the meane vvhereby man maye be deliuered from sinne and from the vvrathe of God vvhiche sinne bringeth to him M SEing then that mā can find in himselfe no remedie to with-holde him from that bottomlesse pitte of perdition where is it that he shal fynd it elsewhere P. In God only who only canne reforme hym to his Image as at the fyrste hee did and formed him according to the same M. But by what meane may he obtayne so greate a good thing of God considering that he hath so greatly offended him and procured his wrath P. It is certaine that no man may haue accesse to God to obteyne saluation of him without a mediatoure by whome he may be made at one with him Of the causes for the vvhich there is neyther man nor Angell sufficiente to the office of mediatoure betvvene God and man and of the greatnesse of the vvrath of God against sinne M. ANd who is this mediatoure which may make this appointmente P. For so much as all men are in like faulte and condemnation there is none among them sufficient for that office of what holynesse and qualitie soeuer he be Mat. Where must he then be sought Shall it be among the Angells whiche haue no sinne P. The very Angells can not be sufficiente therevnto M. Why not P. Chiefly for two causes M. Whiche is the first P. It is that the wrath and cursse of God is so heauie a burden that there is no creature whatsoeuer he be neyther in heauen nor in the earth that may beare it but that he shall be beaten downe with it vtterly M. What is the cause there P. It is bicause that the offence through sinne committed is done against God which is infinite and an eternall prince and king wherefore it deserueth also paines infinite and eternall M. Haue we any testimonie of the same P. The angells which haue sinned may be sure testimonies vnto vs. M. In what sorte P. If that they which were so excellent creatures coulde not themselues beare that which they had deserued for their parte how may one amongst them beare all that that all mankind hath deserued togither M. This reason is very plaine But which is the other cause that maketh that the very Angells are not sufficient to such an office P. For so much as seing that the offence was cōmitted by mā it must also be repaired in him by him M. For what cause P. To the ende that God may be founde true and iust and also mercifull togither Of the setting forth of the iust iudgemēt of the mercy of god in the redēptiō of mā M. HOw doste thou vnderstande the same P. If god did not punish mā acording to the desert of his transgression and according to the threatnings that he himself hath giuen vnto him the sentence that he hath giuen against him where should the truth iustice of God be M. I vnderstand well this point but what wilt thou say of his mercy P. In like sort if he punished man according to his desert where should then this mercy be by the which he sheweth forth his infinit goodnesse more than by any other vertue whatsoeuer that is in him Of the only true mediator Iesus Christ M. If there be neyther man nor Angel sufficient to that office what other mean resteth then by the which that fault of man may be repaired by him in him P. Bycause that man could not among all the creatures find any God hath prouided according to the pietie compassion that he had of him being moued by his only mercy and inestimable charitie M. Which is this mean P. It is that he hath giuen his only sonne Iesus Christe to do this office M. And what mean hath he obserued in this worke P. It is that Iesus Christ being the Eternal true God of one only essence with the father toke humain flesh in the womb of the virgin Marie by the very ordināce of God his father M. What néed was there that he should take humain fleshe vpon him to execute that office P. It was euen so necessarie to the ende that in the same he might satisfie the iust iudgement of God for all men Of the vnion of the diuine and humaine nature in the person of Iesus Chryst and of the causes of the same M. Was it necessary that the same mediator should be very God and very man togither in one very person P. It is euen so chiefly for thrée causes M. Which is the first P. It is that if he had not bene very man he could not haue suffred in our flesh nature that which he hath suffered was to suffer for vs. M. And if he had not suffred the same what incōuenience shuld ther haue ben P. That he shuld not haue born for vs in our nature fleshe the wrath curse of God which we had deserued and then he should not haue satisfied the iudgement of God thorowe his obedience to put away by the same in our own flesh and nature the rebellion by the whiche we haue deserued this iudgemente M. Which is the other cause P. It is that if he had ben but only man and that he had not ben vnited with God being very God and very man in one very person he could not haue ben able to beare this burden of the wrath of god which is so greate and so importable but that he shoulde haue ben swallowed vp how iust or innocent soeuer he shulde haue ben M. Which is the thirde P. It is that he shoulde not haue ben able also to haue brought saluation and life to man if he had not had the fountaine in him selfe by meane of his diuine nature Of the sacrifice and satisfaction of Iesus Christ and of the vertue therof M. WHich is then the meane whereby Iesus Christe hath satisfied for vs in his humaine nature and fleshe P. It is the sacrifice that he himselfe hath made of his owne body and bloud by his passion and death M. Howe is the sacrifice of Iesus Christ of such vertue P. For two principall causes M. Whiche is the first P. The paine the which he béeing innocent hath endured for vs whiche were culpable by the which payne he who had not deserued it hath deliuered vs from it which we haue deserued M. Which is the seconde P. It is the perfecte obedience whiche he hath yelded to God his father in recompence of the transgression and rebellion which was founde in vs. Of the communication in the benefites of Iesus Christ M. IS it sufficiente that he is deade and that he hath yelded to God his father one such an obedience P. If that same were ynough all shoulde be saued indifferently as well infidels as faithfull men M. What is more required then P. That
that whiche thou sayest when they did wryte the genealogie of Iesus Christ the which is broughte foorth by S. Matthewe euen from Abraham and by S. Luke from Adam euen to Iesus Chryst P. They haue had regarde to that whiche thou sayest in déede but they would shew further that he was the true Chryst and the true Sauiour and redéemer that was promised to Israell bycause that hée was descended of the lyue of those of whome the holy Ghoste hathe forespoken by the mouthe of the holy patriarches Prophetes that he shoulde descende Of the woorkes of the holye Ghost in the conception of Iesus Christ M. BVt if he haue taken his fleshe of the line and of the proper fleshe of men who are all sinners howe could he be more without sinne in his fleshe than other men P. The angel hath answered this difficultie when he sayd to the virgin that she should conceiue the sonne of God by the power and workyng of the holye Ghost Mathevve What meanest thou by that vertue and working of the holie Ghost P. I meane that the holy Ghost wrought in that conception so by hys diuine power that the fleshe whyche Iesus Christe tooke of the Virgine Marie was in suche sorte sanctifyed that he dyd purifie and exempt it from all sinne and from all the corruption whereby the whole nature of man is corrupted bycause of sinne that is naturally in it Of the true substance of the bodie of Iesus Christe M. WE may not then imagine in Iesus Chryste a bodie that is so heauenly and diuine that it is not a very mans bodye of verie humane fleshe and substance but wée must beléeue in déede that he is of verye humane substaunce as wée are Pet. Thou concludest verye well And in lyke sorte also wée maye not imagine that this humane bodie of Iesus Christ is a bodie only in apparance as a fantasme as some heretikes haue affirmed auncientlye For if hee hadde not taken a verye mans bodie wée coulde haue no hope of Saluation by him The eyght Dialogue is of the communion betwene Iesus Christe and man. Of the communion of the nature vvhich Iesus Chryst hath with man and not with angels and how necessarie it is to mans saluation MATHEVV DEclare to mée the cause why mā can not be saued if Iesus Chryste had no cōmunion of nature with him P. Why are not the angels also which sinned saued by the deathe and passion of Iesus Christe the whiche are called diuels in the holie Scriptures as well as man who hath sinned as they haue doone M. Bicause that Iesus Christ was not sente by the Father to that effecte and he also came not to saue them but man only P. For that cause also he hath not taken the nature of angels to haue communication of nature with them and to vnite it with his diuine nature to satisfie for them in their owne nature as it pleased him to be vnited with man by vnion of nature to satisfie for them in their owne fleshe as though they themselues did satisfie in their owne person the which he hath endured and represented before the iudgement of God. M. Thou wilte then saye that it was necessarie that the son of God should communicate with our fleshe and bloud by that same vnion of nature and that without this vnion and cōmunication we cannot be saued and redemed by him P. If it hadde not ben necessarie that he should haue had such vnion and communication with vs to revnite vs and to cal vs againe into the sauour of God it had not béen néedfull that he had beene made man. M. God hath then doone vs an honour and shewed vs a fauour in the person of his sonne howe poore and wicked sinners soeuer we be whiche he hath not doone to the angels whiche sinned P. In that same we may know howe much he hath loued vs of his owne goodnesse and howe great and infinite his charitie was towarde vs Wherefore we should also by the same very meane well learne to knowe howe well we ought to loue him on oure parts Of two sortes of vnion and communion vvhiche Iesus Christe hath with man without the which no man can obtayne saluation M. BVt is it sufficient for the saluation of man that the sonne of God was made man to beare the iudgemente the wrathe and cursse of God in their owne nature and their owne fleshe Pe. If that were sufficient al shold be saued indifferently aswel the reprobats as the elect the vnbeleuers as the faithful as we haue alredie touched it heretofore M. Is there then any other maner of vnion cōmunion whereby we must be vnited ioyned with Iesus Christ to obtein saluatiō by him P. Thou mayst iudge by that which we haue alredy sayd of the comuniō that we haue with him thorough faith and of the iustification by the same M. I do very wel remember that thou hast already somwhat touched it but I woulde very gladly that thou didst expoūd the same vnto me somwhat more largely P. The communication of the which we haue nowe spoken is natural and therfore it is common to al men with Iesus Chryst in so much as they be of the same nature of the same flesh that he hathe taken for vs. Ma. And the other Pe. It is spirituall and therefore it is more speciall for it is not generally common to al but it is only propre to the elect and faithfull Of the spirituall marriage betweene Iesus Chryste and his Churche and firste of the vnion of nature that is required in this mariage M. EXpound to me what this vnion and cōmunion conteineth more thā the first P. I wil declare vnto thée by similitude of mariage wherof S. Paul hath vsed to this purpose in the epist. to the Ephesiās M. Expounde vnto me then the similitude P. Nature doth shew vs also teach vs the aliāce cōmuniō of mariage coulde not be betwene mā womā if they were not both liuīg creatures of one very kind and of one very flesh nature M. Albeit that the brute beasts haue ben created of the same very matter whereof man and woman ar created as concerning the bodie yet for al that I know wel that there is greate difference touching the kindes and that man and woman haue a farre other vnion and communion of fleshe and nature together thā w other liuing creatures whiche we do call beastes P. And therfore after that god had created Adam and that his pleasure was to giue him an ayde in mariage he woulde create thys ayde whiche is the woman of the verye flesh and substance of Adam himselfe to the ende that they shuld be one very flesh and one verie body as in déede Adam did right wel know when he saw the womā immediately after that she was so created Wherfore he sayd This here is flesh of my fleshe and bone of my bones and
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
doth signifie vnto vs the vnion that is betwene Iesus Christ and his Church to witte betwene the head and the mēbers P. It signifieth not only the vnion which is betwene Iesus Christ and his members but also the vnion which is and ought to be betwene all the members of his body which cannot be vnited with their heade Iesus christ nor haue him for their head if they be not vnited among themselues the one with the other for Iesus Christ may not be deuided And therefore Sainct Paule hath saide to the same purpose that we are all one bread and therefore we do also euery of vs part take of one very bread and one very cuppe Hovv the supper is the sacrament of vnion and of charitie and of the admonition that vve haue in the same M. SEing it is so it followeth then that the supper is vnto vs a Sacrament of the vnion charitie that all the faithfull ought to haue the one with the other P. That is not to be douted therfore thou must note that euē as baptisme doth admonish vs of the perpetual repentāce mortification which ought to be among vs al the time of our life euē so hath the supper this propre vnto it that it putteth vs in mynd of the vnion charitie wherby we ought to be ioyned the one with the other without the which we can not be christiās forsomuch as Iesus Chryst setteth it foorth vnto vs for a marke wherby his disciples shuld be knowne M. Seing it is so I think assuredly also that we cānot communicate at this holy sacramēt of the supper but to our cōdemnatiō if we haue not this charitie vnion amongst vs. P. It is easie to iudge The 19. dialogue is of the proofe that euery man ought to make of himselfe before the supper Of the principall points vvhich are required in the proofe that is required of euery man before he go to the Supper MATTHEVV M. SEing that we be lyghted vpon the matter of thīgs required wherwith worthily to communicate in the supper declare vnto me now in what sorte wée ought to proue oure selues according to the doctrine of S. Paule to the end wée receiue not this Sacrament vnworthily and to our condemnation P. Thou maist wel know by the matters which we haue alredy handled what it is to receyue the Supper worthily or vnworthily and to saluation or condemnation and how euery man may proue himselfe to communicate thereat as he ought M. I graunte that which thou sayest but I shall vnderstande and comprehende it better if thou doest declare vnto mée briefly the principall pointes whiche are chiefly required in this proofe P. Seing that Iesus Christe is dead for oure sinnes and that therfore all Sacraments doe sende vs to the same death to obtaine forgiuenesse of the same it followeth well that we can not communicate worthily at the Supper except we acknowledge first our selues to be sinners suche as we are and do confesse that we haue deserued by meane of our sinnes eternall death and damnation and that wee can not be deliuered from them but only by the death of Iesus Chryst M. I doe well vnderstand alredie this poynt P. If thou do well vnderstand this thou vnderstandest well also that that acknowledging cōfession can not be in vs without that true repentance wherof we haue alreadie spoken whiche can not be without true amendement of life M. I vnderstand wel also that other pointe P. Thou haste well vnderstoode how that true faith can not be separated frō true repētance For the knowledge of our sins should serue vs to smal purpose if it were not ioyned with a sure trust of forgyuenesse of the same M. That is playne P. Nowe séeing we can not obtain that remission but only by the death of Iesus Chryst and that the Supper is ordeyned to witnesse vnto vs and to assure vs more fully it is therfore easy to iudge that none maye communicate at this holy sacrament without true faith by the which he holdeth himself assured to obtaine the grace which is promised witnessed vnto him in the same M. Thou wilt then say in effect that it is néedful for those whiche dispose themselues to communicate at this sacrament to note diligentely whether they haue true repentance and true faith in Iesus Chryste or no. P. To the ende that the proofe may be the more full and perfect thou shalt ioyne also to these two pointes charitie of the which we euen now did speak by meane wherof all the faithfull are vnited and conioyned the one with the other euen as they be vnited conioyned by fayth with Christ Iesus their head For euen as true repentāce can not be without true faith euē so true faith cānot be without true charitie as wée haue sufficiently alreadie declared M. I vnderstand wel also séeing the Supper is a Sacrament of vnion and charitie as thou hast alreadie declared it that he is not capable of the same that hath not true charitie P. Beholde they are the thrée points to wit repentāce faith and charitie whiche comprehende all the rest that maye be required in the proufe of any man. VVhether it be requisite that euery man haue perfecte repentance faith and charitie before he go to the Supper M. NOwe I haue yet one difficultie vppon these thrée pointes the whiche thou sayst are chiefly required in the proofe of those which will communicate at the Supper P. Shew me that difficultie M. Tell me firste if there be any man that in this mortall life may haue perfecte repentaunce perfecte faithe and perfecte charitie P. If we could haue those vertues so perfecte that nothing coulde be more added therevnto then were wée no more mortall men and shoulde no more néede neyther the preaching of the Gospell nor yet the Sacramentes Mat. Why so Bycause we shoulde then haue all the things for the which al the ministerie of the Churche was ordeyned of God and shoulde be already like to the Angels in such sorte as we shall be after our resurrection when we shall be fully refourmed to the image of Iesus Christ and fully glorified with him M. And yet thou sayest that we cannot worthily communicate at the supper except we bring with vs true repentāce a true faith and a true charitie Pet. That same is not at all against that which I haue nowe sayde VVhat differēce ther is betvvene true perfect repentance faith charitie M. IT must néedes be then that thou put differēce betwéen true perfect repētāce true faith charitie P. Euē so thee is differēce M. What is it P. To make thée the better to vnderstād it I wil shewe thée it by exāmple M. I like well the maner of declaration P. Take then for exāple a yong chyld wilt thou say that he is a perfect man M. No till such time as he be come to the age in which men do accōpt the perfection
it must néedes be day and it can not be otherwise for such is his nature and therfore of necessitie he muste bring foorth suche an effecte of his owne nature without any constraynt or violence at all bicause that he hath that cause naturall in him selfe But there where constraynt is there is some force and vnolence that commeth from else where than from the thing that is enforced and constrayned as if a woman be violated by force she ought not to be accounted a whore in suche sorte as we doe accounte hir who willingly consenteth to the whore master we doe then sinne all necessarily and of necessitie in so muche as it is not possible that of our nature it shoulde doe otherwyse it beeing corrupted as it is and béeing not regenerate by the spirite of God and that by meane of the naturall corruption which sinne hath engendred in all mankinde And yet for al that none constraineth vs but onely our owne malice and wycked will which béeing wicked can applie it selfe to nothing but to euill Therefore it is not without cause saide thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israell but thy saluation is onely by me It dothe then followe that our wicked will dothe euill of necessitie for so muche as it is of a wicked nature that can doe none otherwise as we say that an euil trée doth necessarily bring foorth euill fruite bicause that his nature is suche For as it is written that which is borne of the fleshe is fleshe and that whiche is borne of the spirite is spirite But nowe the will should not be a will if it did not willingly and not by constraynt for will and constraint are contraries wherfore wil ceaseth where constraint hath place yea and it is not possible that will may be constrayned it may in déede be corrupted and chaunged from good into euill or else from euill to good Wherefore euen as a good will dothe necessarily that which is good bycause it can not otherwyse doe béeing good as the good trée of necessitie bringeth foorthe good fruite and yet doth she it not by constrainte but voluntarily euen so dothe the wicked will for so muche as it is wicked necessarilie the euill bicause that his nature is suche as can not otherwyse doe and yet dothe it not at all by constraynt but voluntarily for there is no force nor violence from any where else that dothe constrayne hir agaynst hir owne disposition or inclination but onely in so much as she hath in hir the spring and the cause from the which the euill which she dothe procéedeth Examples and similitudes for declaration of the difference that is put betweene Necessitie and Constraint T. I Can not yet throughly well vnderstand that difference D. I wil make the matter more playne vnto thée by examples and comparisons The fire doth necessarily warme and giue light bicause that it can not otherwise do in so muche as the nature of it is suche and yet is it not constrayned so to do The water on the contrary abiding in his natural doth refresh and make moyst By the like reason a liuing body hath breathing and respiration mouing and féeling and can not otherwise be On the contrary a dead body is depriued from all these things and may necessarily engender nothing but corruption and yet for all that is there no constraint neither in the one nor in the other onlesse we do cal the nature of any thing constraint T. For so much as in maner all these similitudes are giuen of things that haue no will shewe me some others more méete for our purpose D. I will so do We may not doubt but that God is necessarily good iuste wise holy almightie and perfecte for he can be none other nor do any thing but that which is godly iustly wisely and holily done and yet can he in nowise be constrained In like sorte the Angels for so much as they be Angels and doe continue still in that nature wherein they were created of God they can not necessarily doe any other thing but prayse God and serue to his glory for if they did the contrary they should be no more Angels such as they were created by God but they should be Diuels like vnto their felowes which are fallen from their first state And further if they did that which they do by constraint and not willingly thē should they haue no praise with God nor should be any more accepted than is the Deuill for the good which he is constrained to doe for so much as God dothe turne will he nill he his wicked will also his wicked workes making them to serue to his glory on the other side the Deuill being suche as he is now at this present fallen from the Angelicall state wherein he was created of God can necessarily doe nothing but euill and dishonour God for if he should doe otherwise he should be no more a Deuill and yet surely he doth not that which he doth of cōstraint but volūtarily For who should constraine him to do euill should God so doe who hath forbidden condemned it can doe nothing but that which is good it is very true that there is none other cōstraint but only of his owne wicked wil whiche hath as great delight in doing euill as that of the Angels of heauen hath in doing well But the like is not in the doing of the good that he doth for in that he doth nothing but by cōstraint and that whiche is alwaies euill in so much as it procéedeth frō him cā not be good but so farre forth as God through his power infinite goodnesse will he or will he not doth draw out goodnesse of it maketh it to serue to an other end thā to that whervnto the Deuill did pretēd T. I do now begin already to discerne more perfectly in this matter than I did before Of the free necessitie to do vvell that vvas in man before sinne and of the necessitie to doe euill vnconstrayned notvvithstanding into the vvhich he is fallen through the same and in vvhat meaning this vvord of necessitie ought to be taken vvhen it hath regard to good things D. WE may easily vnderstād by these exāples what we may iudge of mā cōcerning this matter wherof we doe now intreat For after that mā was created by God in so much as he was created of God good iust holy he did necessarily willingly all that wherfore God had created him For seing that God had created him good as he did all his other creatures it was naturall for him to do well continuing in the same being ioined to God hearing his voyce he coulde none otherwise do For in as much as his will was good he could not will nor yet do folowing that good will but that which was good but when he once gaue eare to the coūsel of the deuill chaūging both his will nature by folowing of him is
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