made the Sacrament of the blood of Christ and breade the Sacrament of his bodie and wine also of his blood 38. Question But thou a little before diddest cal these partes Answeare I did so and not without cause For these twoo which are causes by themselues are also essentiall partes of the thinges as the Logicians doe very well teach 39. Question Nowe what are the endes of these Sacramentes Answeare Some chiefe endes to wit that Christ as I haue said with all his gifts may more more be sealed in vs othersome not so special as that by this badge also we shoulde bee distinguished from others that make not profession of the Christian faith should bee knit together more and more amongst our selues in mutuall loue 40. Question And is there no more Answeare Yes this also is to be added That the Sacraments are also remēbraunces of thinges past as in the ceremonies of baptisme the powring out of water doth set before our eyes as present the shedding forth of Christes blood the putting into water the cōming out his death burial resurrection also the breaking of bread in the Supper doth after a sort represēt vnto vs Christ crucified for vs. 41. Question These thinges being expounded I woulde gladly learne of thee what the knitting together of the signes the thinges signified is For thou art not ignorant that this controuersie is specially handled nowadaies Whether the body and blood of the Lord be really present yea or no that is in the same place where that bread and that wine is or whether the signes remain as some think or be abolished the accidēts onely remaining as they teache which consent with the Pope Answeare This controuersy is growen so whot and come so farre that for the deciding thereof we neede rather conscience then knowledge but the Lorde alone either by some wonderfull iudgement or some notable example of his mercie will decide it notwithstanding I will endeuour too make it playne when I shall come too speake of the Lordes Supper Now that I may answeare to that which is demanded I say that forasmuche as the thinges signified both in the simple woorde and in the Sacramentes be partly things not subsisting or standing by themselues as the forgiuenesse of sinnes the gift of sanctification the encrease of faith incorporation into Christ and suche like that the questiō of the real presence of the things signified must necessarily bee restrayned to some real beyng Now as I suppose no other can bee put but Christe himselfe And when they with whom wee agree not concerning this matter doe not themselues as I suppose think that Christ should bee deuided as those that complaine notwithstanding vndeseruedly that the same is done of vs because that we denie the reall presence of Christes bodie Doest thou thinke that the state of this question is so too bee taken Whether Christe GOD and man bee present in those places themselues where the Sacramentes are ministred Question So I haue read in some of theyr wrytinges who notwithstanding affirme this not generally of all Sacramentes but onely of the Lordes Supper Answeare I woulde not doubte too affirme the same both of the supper of the Lord and of Baptisme and also after a certayne manner of those Sacramentes which were before the comming of Christ into the Earth neither woulde I think my selfe a Christian if I should denie this 42. Question I am glad that we agree amongest our selues Answere God graunt that at length we may agree Therfore heare I pray thee It cannot be denied but that Christ according too his Godhead is euery where This likewise is without all controuersie that forasmuch as mans nature is so taken of the Woorde that GOD and Man are one reall beeyng it must needes followe if thou consider Christe as some one and singular thing that whole Christ is also euery where present and yet not as in the Sacramentes in which vndoubtedly there must be appoynted some peculiar and special manner of presence as I may so speak that they may be distinguished from other common thinges in which also hee is present The other thing that I would haue wel weighed of thee is this that which is spoken of the whole is not yet spoken of the singular parts being amōgst themselues of a diuerse kinde As for example All the whole that we call man we define to be partaker of reasō which yet thou wilte not say of no essentiall parte of man considered in it selfe And yet there is somewhat in this definition too witte reason which is attributed to that other parte of man euen to the soule Doest thou not see then that whole Christ that is Christ considered as a certaine whole and absolute thing is another thing then all belonging to Christ that is Christ whō thou shalt way particularly by his partes For in this case let it be lawful for me to atttribute also the name of a part to the Godhead 43. Question I see it very well but is there any more Answeare Yea I woulde haue this farther to be marked of thee that certain thinges doo so fitly serue for the establishing of some singuler thing that that which by no meanes can agree by it selfe to some one may yet be attributed vntoo it as it cleaueth is conioyned with another the which thing is so farre foorth true that it may also be sayde of those which yet but accidentally onely and for a time are ioyned together as for example when a King is crowned and is honored in his robes the crowne and his robes are also reuerenced but yet in respect of another thing to witte of his kingly dignitie wherof they are ornamentes not in respect of them selues For heereby it plainely appeareth that the honour and reuerence is not referred too those things because when the king hath put them off no man can endure to reuerēce them vnlesse he bee out of his wits but they are reuerenced for another to wit for the Kinges sake of whom they are worne Neither euer doth the crown or robes grow vp into one real being with the king Much more therefore shall some thing be said in respect of another which is ioyned personally with another which yet can by no meanes in respect of it selfe be attributed vnto it So there is attributed to the worde taking mans nature that which is peculiar to mans nature as when it is sayd that God suffered as also to maas nature Actes 20. 28. that which is peculiar to the woorde taking vpon it mans nature as when in mās nature at what time he talked with Nichodemus in the earth he sayd that Iohn 3. 13. he was in heauen Question These thinges thou hast handled before But thou diddest adde that this was spoken of certaine distinct woordes to witte of God and man But of the abstract to witte of the Godhead and manhoode not so Answeare Vnlesse this be so the confusion of the naturall
Notwithstanding I would haue this confirmed vnto me by plaine euident reasons to wit that these propositions This is my body c This is my blood c are to bee taken figuraliuely Answeare I will doe it and that gladly For what can be more acceptable vnto mee then so to open this trueth that all coulour and sleight being remooued it may be seene of all men euen as it is Now I will so order my proofes that in the first place I will bryng myne argumentes from these very woordes of the institution This is my bodie and secondly of the reason which is takē from the affirmation of the Subiect Nowe that that wee shall say of the bodie I woulde also to bee vnderstoode of the blood 214. Question Nowe then what is thy first argument Answeare That which he tooke brake and reached the Lord commaunded to bee taken and eaten This same hee sayde to be his bodie But he tooke that very same breade brake it and deliuered it c. the Euangelistes witnessing the same Therefore hee sayde that that same bread was his bodie But thinges that are vnlyke contrary in nature can not be spoken properly of them selues But bread and the bodie of Christ are things disagreeing by nature Therefore they can not properly be sayde the one of the other It remayneth therefore that forasmuche as this speeche of Christe is true it bee vnderstoode figuratyuely 215. Question But what now is the other argumēt Answeare In euery proper and reguler affirmation of the Subiect eyther the generall worde or the worde of propertie or the worde of accident is affirmed of the speciall or the speciall of the singular but the body of Christ is neyther the generall worde nor the worde of differencie nor the worde of propertie nor the worde of accident nor the speciall in respect of the bread Therfore it can by no maner of meanes be sayd of the bread Notwithstanding it is said and that truely when it is spoken of Christ Therefore figuratiuely 216. Question Shewe also the thirde Answeare If the body of Christ be spoken properly and regularly of this bread then the things that agree to the body agree to the bread and contrariwise But to be borne of the virgine Marie to bee hungrie to die for vs to be crucified to rise againe c agree to the bodye of Christ but not vnto bread And contrariwise to bee sowen reaped threshed kneded baked agree in deed to bread but by no meanes to the body therefore by a reguler and common vsuall maner of speach the bread can not be sayd to be the body of Christ 217. Question Shewe the fourth Answeare If that be a naturall proposition eyther the same is sayd of it selfe or els not the same but a contrarie But neyther of both is true Therefore it can not be a naturall proposition That the same can not be said of it selfe it appeareth plainely by these reasons First because in any identicall proposition that is where the same thing is affirmed of the selfe same the Subiect the predicate must not differ in the thing but in the name onely as when I say a blade is a sworde as a target is a shield the sonne of the virgin is Christ but bread and the body of Christ are not words of the same signification but thinges altogeather diuers therefore they make not an identicall Proposition But if nowe An identicall proposition is a proposition affirmatiue of it selfe some froward person will haue one and the same substance too bee declared in these two words first ye must shew that neither bread ceaseth to be bread nor the the bodie ceaseth to be a bodie Furthermore in a proposition Identical the subiect and predicate are conuertible or standing one for an other Therefore if this proposition were identicall or one the bodie of Christ might as truely bee said to be baked in an Ouen as it is truly saide that bread is the body giuen for vs. Therfore it is not as the schoolemen speake an identicall proposition Now againe that nothing diuers is herein naturally said is thus prooued by a necessary consequence If the body as some thing diuers should bee regulerly spoken of bread surely eyther it should be spoken essentially or as the cause or as accidentary We haue shewed in the seconde argument that it is not spoken essentially as neither being vnto breade as the general or as the difference nor as the special in respect of the singular Now it can much lesse be the causal affirmation For neither hath a bodie the reason in respect of bread of the efficient cause nor of the end but the inward causes to wyt the matter and fourme are referred to the essential affirmation Finally it can not bee any accidentall affirmation for as much as the body is no accident yea and though it were yet it can not be an accident to bread It remaineth therefore that by neyther of both wayes that same can be either a naturall or a proper Proposition 218. Question Tell the fift Answeare If that same bread were properly the bodie of Christe it shoulde also be personally vnited to the Sonne of God Of which should folow those same three most absurd and false thinges that the sacramentall personall vnion are one and the same that Christ in this Sacrament should consist of three natures personally essentially vnited knit togeather to be short that the bread and the wine should be aduaunced into a condition infinitely better then the Church it selfe For so the bread should properly be the very body of Christ but the Church should be the body of Christ but figuratiuely or mystically neyther is there any faythfull man that is very Christ but onely a partaker of Christ 219. Question I pray thee adde also the sixt Answeare If that same bread bee properly the body of Christ that same wine properly the blood of Christ as they are distinct signes so also the body shal be separated from the blood or either signe shal be properly whole Christ Nowe if this later be true the letter shal not simplie be kept but a synechdoche must be placed as for example it must haue bene sayde properly This bread is my body and my blood and this cup is my blood and my body And to what purpose I pray you had there needed a double element 220. Question And wilt thou adde as so the seuēth Answeare That which is sayde to be with another thing or in an other or vnder an other without commixtion beeyng also ioyned with a most neere knitting together cannot properly be sayde too bee that thing it selfe As for example sake although the soule and the bodie be ioyned togeather personally and inseparably yet notwithstāding no man wil say the the bodie is the soule or the soule is the bodie Much lesse therefore the sacramental coniunctiō shal bring this thing to passe that the bread shall properly be the very body of
that same bread his bodie that same cup his blood where that same bread is called the communion of his body that same cup the communion of his blood doeth altogether shewe that bothe these sayinges are figuratiue or at least wise one of them too witte eyther that of Paule or that of Christ Question To wit that of Paule is to bee expounded out of the proper saying of Christ Answeare Therefore at the length thou arte brought too confesse that whosoeuer doeth mainteine and defende figures in the controuersie of the Sacraments doe not ouerthrowe the Testament of the Sonne of GOD. But to the matter It is easie too shewe out of our seuenth Argument and out of that that went next before that both these were figuratiue whether thou doe interprete that out of this or this out of that as for example both these Propositions This cup for this Wine is my blood and this wine is the communion of my bloode nowe the like is too bee thought of breade it is diuers from this this wine is the licour of the vine which notwithstanding thou must needes say is most proper and therefore so stoutly to bee maintened because as we haue saide ouerthrowing or taking away the substaunce of the signe the foundation of the analogy or proportion shoulde also bee taken away and ouerthrowen Question I would answeare that both Christ and Paule passed this ouer as a thing sufficiently knowen For to what purpose shoulde he haue taught his Disciples that that bread which he held in his handes was breade and that wine But vndoubtedly it behooued him to teach them that which otherwise they woulde neuer haue beleeued too witte that those thinges also which hee helde in his handes and gaue them in vnder or with Bread and Wyne was his body and his blood Answeare Therefore thou must needes determine that the figure Synecdoche is in these woordes This breade and this cuppe and therefore whilest thou studiest to auoyde figures thou fallest into a figure But we will way this Synecdoche in his place to wit when we shal come too the confutation But thou in the meane time shalt not so escape For with what manner and with how great coniunction soeuer thou shalte couple those two vnlike thinges in themselues indeede togeather suche as are the bread and the body wine and the blood yet notwithstanding thou shalte neuer bring to passe that the one may properly be sayd to be the other No neyther in the coniunction can one be sayde to be the other but eyther of them must bee made a certayne thirde thing Therefore this at the least must bee a proper proposition in or vnder or with this bread and wine is my body blood It remayneth therefore that thou confesse that both this saying of Christe and that of Paule whether thou interprete this out of that or that out of this be figuratiue 230. Question Howe therefore doest thou thinke this place of Paule shoulde bee expounded Answeare First of all they are to be confuted who take the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth common for distribution which the matter it selfe cryeth out too be most absurd forasmuch as bread and wine are substances but distribution is an action and Paule himselfe expounding that vseth a woorde that signifieth to participat and the scope it selfe of the Apostle requireth that it declare a communion and not a distribution Moreouer it is woonder that they who allowe no trope in the matter of the Sacramēt that they can in this place interpret the cōmunicating of the body for the bodie communicated or distributed that is cā confound the action with the effect For neither in good sooth doe they this well because they referre this distribution to the word of breaking as though Paule had written the bread which we distribute is the body cōmunicated For the word of breking ought to be taken properly in this action as wee haue shewed before and it appeareth by the word he gaue which is added to the woorde hee brake in the narration of the Euangelist Question What therefore thinkest thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be called Answeare Commmunion and felowship which is the true signification of his word it differeth somwhat frō 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysost noteth although Paule vseth the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indifferently one for the other Such as the Communion is therefore that is to say the naturall societie of all men in the common nature of flesh blood as between themselues with Christ himselfe such is the communion by the goodnesse of God betwixt al the faithful Christ into whom they are engraffed and incorporated Question But by what maner of speach may that breade bee said to be that same felowship and communion Answeare With the Logitians it is called a causall affirmation whereby the proper effect is attributed to the proper cause whether it bee materiall or efficient which manner or fashion is to be referred to the fourth maner of affirming by it selfe as they speake in the schooles Now a figuratiue speach is when the effect is put for the cause or else forsooth for the very efficient cause as for example when Christ is called the resurrection the life for the rayser and giuer of life or the cause of resurrection life or for the materiall cause as when Paule sayeth You are my glory or reioycing the is to say the matter of my glory or reioycing or for the instrumental which also is it self efficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say being as it were an vnder seruer as when the Gospel is said to be the power of God to saluation that is to say the instrument that God vseth effectually too saue vs. So also in this place that same Breade and that same wine are sayde to be that communion that is to say the instrumentes whereby that same consociation and felowship of ours is wrought and ratified in vs. Now this same instrument is sacramentall or rather symbolicall and not the verye efficient cause which is the holy Ghost Therefore as that same figuratiue proposition of Christe This bread is my body is expoūded by this This bread is sacramental my bodie so also this saying of Paul This bread is the communication of my bodie is to be expounded by this proper This bread is the Sacramental instrument of our consociation and felowship with the bodie of Christ For there the figure is onely in the Copulatiue that knitteth the matter together to wit a Sacramental Metonymie or translation but heere also in the attribute is a figure which they call Metalepsis too witte putting the effecte for the cause 231. Question But canst thou besides bring forth any other argumentes Answeare Yea that can I. And first of all that same from the essentiall and constituting fourme of all the Sacramentes which is in summ that they may consist of the
some wil seme so altogether of the spirit that they despise all outward things as grosse others againe beleue nothing in a maner vnles they may fele handle it with their hands But they that wil heare God first speking by his prophets then by his Apostles shal go to neither side But herof we shal see more hereafter that al things may be hādled in their fit place In few words therfore thus I answeare thee Although God teach vs spiritual euerlasting thinges inwardly by his spirit notwithstanding he semeth to haue set this law vnto him self to teach vs the same by the senses which are giuen vs vnlesse it be when he would worke any thing extraordinarily in his children Now there are fiue senses as it were the messengers of the minde too wit seeing hearing tasting smelling feeling Of these God hath made speciall choice of two too wit seeyng and hearing of which I woulde gladly learne of thee whether thou thinkest to excell the rest Question I thinke Seeing whose place aboue the rest seemeth to bee vnspeakeable Answeare Thou art greatly deceaued For albeit the sighte seeme by kinde as it were too drawe nearest the verye nature of the mynde it selfe aswell for the swiftnes of the eyes as for theyr sharpnesse in beholding things yet notwithstanding forasmuche as thou canst see nothing but that which is to be seen and as a mā would say sightable in those things themselues which are seene the most notable things cānot be seene but in mind and there are more things infinitely which cannot bee beholden then which may be seen with the eyes to be short seing whatsoeuer is conceaued in the mind may by the sound of words for soūd is appointed to teach the mind by the eares after some sort bee expressed It followeth that hearing by infinite oddes is a more profitable instrumēt then seing for the knowing of those thinges that are conceaued in the minde Question I came that I might heare a diuine not a naturall Philosopher Answeare When thou knowest to what end these words tēd thou shalt wel vnderstād the I do not any whit at all decline from the scope and end of a Diuine And if it be a wicked thing for them that speake of Diuine thinges too touche anye thing of naturall Philosophie then then thou must of necessitie blotte out in a manner al the woorde of GOD. Deniest thou therefore that there is greater vse of the eares thē of the eies for the knowledge of thinges Question No not so verily seeing we learn euerie thing by hearing and onely behold thinges that are sightable or to be seen neither are we cunning in thē vnlesse we be by hearing taught of others both what and what maner of things they are But whereto tende these thinges Answeare That thou shouldest knowe that when God appointed to teach man concerning that same secret will of his in the knowledge whereof consisteth all our saluation he chose out frō amongest all the other senses that of hearing as most fitte for that purpose by which faith cōmeth and therefore Rom. 10. righteousnesse and life as the Apostle teacheth And her of is that same authoritie and worthines of the woord of God so oftentimes witnessed in the holy Scriptures Question But in vaine is it vttered to them that are deafe And thou hast taught in thy former treatise that we are altogither by nature vnapt to heare the woord of God Answeare Now truely any man may very wel heare that is indued with the sense of hearing and also may vnderstand the meaning of those things he hath heard neither is he deuoyd of reason But in good earnest to agree and consent to these things so heard and vnderstoode as right and true no man can doe it but by the peculiar grace of the holy Ghost which notwithstanding is giuen to many Reprobates for their farther iudgement To conclude for a man to apply the promise of saluation in Christ particularly to himself which is the verie propertie of faith this is onely giuen to the elect which gift wee call the regenerating grace This foundation being layde in deede the woord of God is not preached to them that are deafe GOD giuing vs eares to heare and as Saint Luke saith opening our heartes that wee might apply through fayth vnto our selues those thinges vnderstood with our eares which flesh and blood teacheth not 5. Question I see not yet howe these thinges should belong vnto the Sacramēts Answeare Yea but I haue sayde before that God to the end he might certifie vs of his good will in sauing vs hath also chosen the sense of seeing which was the cause of instituting the sacraments Question But seeing these same euerlasting and heauenly benefits which are set foorth vnto vs in the holy scriptures to be layde hold vpon by fayth in Christ are spirituall they cannot be seene but in minde yea and Christ himselfe cannot nowe bee seene by any carnall eyes Answeare Thou sayest verie true But GOD hath found out a way whereby hee might in a manner set these thinges before our eyes yea which were of them selues inuisible and were for the greatest part as I may say not to be vnderstood Nowe that thou mayst see this matter more plainly I will not stick to vse a distinction vsed of that same Dionysius whosoeuer he were He sayth therfore that partly the doctrine wherby god deliuereth vnto vs those same holy thinges is cleare applied to our knowledge as whē this or that is spokē vnto vs in vsual knowne wordes partly darckly and mystically spoken which also he calleth symbolical that is which is so after a certaine sort taught that it doth not by by set forth those thinges naked to be vnderstood but as it were leadeth vs about by certaine thinges enterlaced and wrapped vp And that it is so the holy Scriptures plainely shew as we will anon declare 6. Question Are therefore some principles of Christian doctrine plainlyer and some darkelyer taught of God in the Church Answeare Surely in this point many haue greeuously offended because they translated those thinges to the things themselues that belonged to the forme and maner of teaching as though forsooth he taught I cannot tell what part of heauenly wisdome to be necessarie to saluatiō to the common sort another part to belong I cannot tell to what more perfect men 7. Question Doest thou say therefore that no other thinge is taught of God by the eyes or in the sacraments then that which is perceiued by the eares or by the simple word Answere I say that these differ not in the thinges themselues that are taught but in the manner of teaching 8. Question But to what purpose was it to adde that symbolical and obscurer manner of teaching to that simple and plaine kinde if no other thing be taught in that then in this Answere Yea rather that which thou thinkest to be the harder is the
action in the congregation eyther of some whole church or of some particular finally not to bee celebrated of any one priuatly but in common whereof we shall speake afterwardes when we shall dispute agaynst the abuses of the holie Supper 171. Question What callest thou the elementes Answeare That same bread that wine 172. Question Why doest thou adde that same bread and that wine Answeare That I may distinguish holy things from common things For so also Paule speaketh 1. Cor. 11. 16. 17. Question But in what thing consisteth this difference Answeare Not in the substance but in the qualitie and vse For common bread common wine are sette before vs that they may nourishe this life but that same bread and that same wine are therefore giuen vs that they might be both signes seales of the communicating of that body geuen for vs and of the blood shed for vs and that into euerlasting life 173. Question And what are those same rites belonging vnto the Sacrament Answeare Touching that that belongeth vnto the minister to blesse too breake too powre out to geue concerning that that belongeth to the guestes too take too eate to drinke 174. Question And what is signified aswel by these elementes as by those ceremonies sacramētally Answeare Surely that bread is the sacramētall signe of that body geuen for vs and that wine of that blood shedde for vs finally both two of whole Christ as of our euer lasting meate The blessyng was appoynted not so muche to signifie some mysterie as partly to confirme those which came to the Lordes Table partly to perfect that same Sacrament and partly to celebrate some solempne action of thankes giuing Of which matter it shall be meete to entreate apart Now the breaking of the bread is a signe of the passion of Christ 175. Question Whence doest thou geather this For there are which referre this specially to the vse of vnleauened or sweet breades which it is manifest was not very thick and for the cutting wherof there needed no knyfe Moreouer they say also that to breake bread by the Hebrew phrase signifieth as much as to distribute plentifully to giue bread Answeare Both the things that these men say is very true but this same last is by no means agreeable to those things which the Lord did commaunded to be done For it is written he brake he gaue wereby there can not be vnderstood by the name of breaking the distributiō of bread Now I graunt that some other and I adde further that housholders were wont yea besides the vse of vnleauened bread to breake bread to the vse of their housholde But the Apostle manifestly sheweth that this ryte albeit it was common yet it became sacramentall and that by reason of those same mentioned punishments which the lord suffered for our cause for so much as hee wrote in steed of these wordes that is giuen that is broken 176. Question Yea but one bone was not broken in him Answeare I graunt it but yet verely hee was torne and rent both with the tormentes of minde and body and there is nothing more vsuall in the woorde of God then this Metaphor whereby it is also sayd that the heart is brused broken Nowe this giuing or outwarde offring of the signes is to be taken as if Christe himselfe should giue him selfe vnto vs with his owne hande to be vsed and enioyed and shoulde insinuate himselfe wholy vnto vs which thing also in verie deede he perfourmeth inwardly by the power of his holy spirite vnles that our vnbeliefe hinder it Now the outward receiuing wherby we lay holde vpon the elements as with the hand it answereth the inward receiuing by fayth that betwixt vs and Christ there may be perfected and concluded as it were a certaine bargayne Christ demaunding Wilt thou receiue me inwardly by fayth euen as I doe outwardly deliuer thee these same seales of my promise by my minister into thy handes And fayth answering I wil Lord and by fayth I receiue thee euen as this hand receiueth these seales giuen vnto it Nowe the eating of that breade and the drinking of that wine declareth the applying of Christe layde holde vpon by fayth whereby it is brought to passe that being truely made partakers of him we more and more drawe out of him whatsoeuer belongeth to our saluation 177. Question But what is the proportion and the analogie of these signes with the thinges signified Answeare This analogie or proportion is manifest in it selfe For seeing that breadeand wine is most fit aboue other meats for the nourishing of our bodies they do most fitly set forth him vnto vs in whō onely euerlasting life resteth But the breaking of breade and the pouring foorth of wine doeth as it were set before our eyes those infinit torments that the Lord suffered for our sakes that wee might in a maner looke vpon him with our very eyes hanging bloodie vpon the Crosse and instilling into vs out of his pierced side euerlasting life Hitherto belongeth that same saying De consec dist 2. When the offering is taken whiles the blood is poured out of the cuppe into the mouthes of the faythful what other thing is set foorth thē the offering vp of the Lords body vpon the crosse and the pouring foorth of his blood from his side Finally the eating and drinking doeth so expresly and in a manner so liuely declare as it were our transformation into Christe him selfe and his insinuation againe into vs whereby he him selfe liueth in vs and we againe in him that nothing can be more euident For what can be more nearely ioyned vnto vs then that which we eate and drynke as that which is transformed chaunged into our selues 178. Question But yet thou hast saide nothing of our mutuall consociation into one body Answeare That also appeareth by the whole ceremony For seeyng that we take one and the selfe same meat from one and the self same table wee professe that wee are of one and the selfe same Housholde and wee promyse eche too others our mutuall helpes by this solempne ceremony Hitherto also belongeth that same analogie and proportion of bread wyne made of many graines into one body which liuely setteth as it were before our eyes our mutuall knitting and growing vp together as mēbers vnder one heade Wherefore also Augustine calleth this mysterie the bonde of loue which is expounded plainely by the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. 17. 179. Question But why are there two Elementes giuen in the Supper and but one in Baptisme Answeare Because Christ in Baptisme is set forth vnto vs as a Lauer water also onely suffiseth to washe away filthines But in the Lords supper forasmuch as Christ is set forth vnto vs as that heauenly nourishment and this life needeth not onely eating but also drinking not without cause not onely bread but also wine is giuē in the supper of the Lorde that we might knowe that wee ought to seeke our