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
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
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
whole lyfe in Christ alone 180. Question Doest thou therefore thinke the vse of that wine to be as necessary as the vse of that bread Answeare What els And therefore that the vse of the Cupp was taken from Christians not without the instinct of Sathan Of which matter we will speake in the refutation of abuses 181. Question But what doest thou thinke of taking the Sacrament with the hande which also the Romish Church tooke away Answeare Albeit I wil not say that the taking or touching with the hand is so precisely necessarie as the other Sacramentall rytes for he also receyueth that receiueth with his mouth yet notwithstanding I thinke that this also ought to be restored in the Church For it is more playne then that it can be denyed that the auncient Apostolical Church did the same and it is playne that this same thrusting of the bread into the mouth sprang first from a certaine preposterous and altogeather superstitious reuerence of the Sacraments as though men were vnworthie to handle the holy Elements when as notwithstanding the mouth is more impure then the hande To be short there is no man but seeth vnlesse it bee hee which hath no eyes from whence this superstition cōmeth that same doting dreame of transubstantiation once beeyng receiued 182. Question Then thou much lesse allowest the taking away of the breaking of bread Answeare Thou thinkest rightly For this being taken away the proportion or the analogie of the death of Christ is takē away as we haue shewed before 183. Question To cōclude thē what thinkest thou of that that eating is chaunged into adoration caring about finally into an oblation for the quicke the dead Answeare Surely that Sathā hath euen passed himself by bringing this impiety seing that ther was neuer any such grosse idolatry heard of no not amongst the most prophane Gentiles 184. Question Goe to then let vs speake of the blessing or consecration Answeare Why thou hast alreadie shewed what this thing is forasmuch as by the name of consecration is vnderstood blessing Question So then I suppose that thou callest it that which the diuines also cal sanctification that is to say a translation from a common vse to a holy woorship of God But against this interpretation there are certaine stoppes For the Euangelistes doe vse in this selfe same argument of the supper two Greeke woords commonly and indifferently one for another the one to blesse the other to giue thankes Now that these doe differ within thēselues it may specially appeare by this that to blesse is alwayes taken transitiuely but to giue thankes alwayes intransitiuely Moreouer also that same common sanctification to witte whereby it is brought to passe that we may lawfully vse meates is manifestly distingushed from thanks giuing and prayers as the consequēt from the antecedent Answeare It is an vsuall thyng with the Hebrewes whose phrase the writinges of the Apostles do sauour of to vnderstand the consequent by the antecedent therefore to giue thankes albeit it bee alwayes set down absolutely yet notwithstanding it is taken in this argument for to sanctifie with thankes giuing and againe this action of thankes giuing is spoken generally of prayers the Apostle vsing the name of intercession though in an vnequall thing yet not altogether vnlyke So also to blesse whē it is attributed to God is takē for too sanctifie Moyses him selfe being interpreter Gen. 2. verse 3. Question But that Christ in the history of the holy Supper speaketh as a Mediatour as man hereby it appeareth that the Euangelistes as I haue sayde vse this worde to giue thankes indifferently which by no meanes can be attributed to God Answeare Thou thinkest rightly Therefore there is no doubt but that in Paule 1. Cor. 10. 16. that which we blesse Oecumenius hath interpreted out of the Hebrewe phrase and maner of speach That which we prepare by blessing Nowe blessing is referred partly to God and partly to the Elements them selues as it is first instituted of Christ in this matter as he who after his maner first blessed God his father that is to say gaue him thankes In which respect also this mysterie may be called a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgiuing and therewithall that the sonne as the Lorde of his fathers householde might sanctifie the elements taken that they might not be that which they were by nature but might beginne to be that sacramentally to which aswell in signifying as in giuing and sealing they were by his will appoynted so as also they might take the very names of the things signified as if they were the same thing that sacramentally they signified Nowe that which was then first instituted and done of him as it is performed by his commaundement so also it is performed by his power as of him who hath sayd doe this 185. Question But of this blessing there is no certaine fourme prescribed specially concerning the action of giuing of thankes Answeare I graunt it Therefore it was free for the Churches to prescribe a fourme of so many and so great benefites as was thought expedient so that in the very substance of the matters they went not any whit from the written worde And hereupon not onely that Canon which they called the Greeke and Latin Canon but also those manifolde liturgies or fourmes of prayer called by that name were encreased interlined and corrupted by litle and litle that not onely they became the very sincke of all superstition but also of all vngodlinesse 186. Question But is there not also some kynde of fourme prescribed of the Sacramentall benediction Answeare Yes certes it is prescribed in playne wordes of the three Euangelists and of Paule Question But why rather of this then of that Answeare Because it onely belongeth vnto Christ to constitute and appoynt Sacramentes by prescript wordes of him selfe least whiles wee vary from the wordes wee also straye from his will Nowe it was not needefull to prescribe certayne set wordes which wee shoulde vse in the expounding of his institution in prayer in giuing of thankes Therfore it ought to suffise vs to haue those things prescribed according to the rule whereof wee ought to require those of ours 187. Question And what is that same Sacramentall forme Answeare Euen the same that is prescribed of the three Euangelistes and of Saynte Paule 188. Question And yet these doe somewhat varie amongst themselues in wordes Answeare But in the matter it selfe they varie not any whit at all therefore it skilleth not which of these thou folowe But this same little variety in woordes sheweth that we must not sticke in the sillables themselues which is altogether magicall but we must marke the signification of the wordes Neither for al that is it lawfull for vs to goe any whitte from the prescript wordes 189. Question Thinkest thou not then these woordes are woorking and effectual wordes Answeare No indeede if thou call them woorking woordes wherein there should be some woorking