shal I speak of that which swallowed vp Helice and Bura twoo notable Cities as Eusebius Eutropius diuers other Authors witnesse Iosephus in his Booke de Iudaico Bello maketh mention of an Earthquake in Iudea wherin there perished thirtie thousand people And Cornelius Tacitus in his second booke saith that twelue of the most notable Citties in all Asia were swallowed vpp in one night In the 21. yeare after Christ Eusebius affyrmeth that these thirteene Cities fell with an Earthquake Ephesus Magnesia Sardis Mosthene Mechiero Caesarea Philodelphia Himulus Tenus Cumae Mirthina Apollonia and Diahircania What should I recken all before that warre of the Parthians when Carbulus was Proconsul of Syria before the destruction of cruell Nero at the death of Titus H. Vespasians sonne there were terrible Earthquakes and three famous Cities of Cyprus were swallowed vpp foure of Asia also in the tyme of Traian further two of Grecia and three of Galatia Oros lib. 7. Cap. 12. Eutrop. Antiochia was so shaken that scarsely Traian the Emperour escaped read Dion Nicomedian and a great peece of the Citie of Nice in the time of Adrian fell by an earthquake so did Nicopôlis and Caesarea two famous Cities after which followed wonderful calamities in the time of Gordian Tyre Sydon was by the same meanes ouerthrowen so was many Cities of the East before the heresies of the Arrians tooke footing in the worlde when good Athanasius and other faithful Bishops and Pastours were so cruelly persecuted I wil say nothing of Antiochia of Neocaesarea of Dyrachiū of Rome and Ierusalem it selfe Neither will I speak of nearer tymes For it were impossible to recken all I referre al godly men to the latter wryters alreadie published cōcerning our late Earthquake This is most certaine that it is an vndoubted token of gods displeasure towarde vs to draw vs to speedy repentaunce It setteth foorth vnto vs the groning of all creatures of the earth it selfe for that restauration which the Sonne of God Iesus Christ our Sauiour shall perfourme at his comming And I beseeche God that our heartes may bee so shaken from the highest to the lowest that we may call our selues to a reckoning of our dayes paste to shake of our former sinnes that wee may mourne before he strike that he may haue pitie vpon vs that hee may molifie our stony affections to make vs tremble at his presence to loue his Gospell with a more feruēt loue and to couch down with al obediēce This good Lady is the desire of my heart both towards your grace and towards all the Israell of God In which state I assure my self if we be foūd though the foundation of the earth bee shaken and the sea make a noyse yet God will keepe Syon and the Apple of his eye shall not be touched The Lorde Iesus keepe vs in this protection that wee and ours may liue and dye in the hope comfort hereof to which I most humbly commende your Grace this first of May. 1580. Your Graces most humble in the Lord Ioh. Field ¶ A Table of the questions expounded in this other part according to the number of the figures noted in the margine Of the Sacraments in generall and first of the name Sacrament 1 THat which the Hebrewes call Sud the Chaldeans Razo the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latines haue turned Sacramēt is not any where spoken of the ancient or of those same newe ceremonyes in the holy scriptures to which notwithstanding there is not any thing added 2 Why the Grecians called these rytes mysteries 3 Why the Latines called the same Sacraments The groundes of the definition of a Sacrament 4 That the Sacraments are therefore added to the simple plaine word that wee also might bee instructed by the eyes and yet that hearing excelleth the fight for the atteyning of the knowledge of things 5 After what manner the eyes serue to the knowledge of spirituall things 6 God giueth all the opinions of Christian religiō to euery sort of men though not with the sinne and a lyke maner of teaching 7 By the Sacramentes although otherwyse yet nothing more is taught in the Church then in the plaine and simple worde 8 The manner of teaching by the Sacramentes because of the worde adioyned to it is playner then the other neyther is it without cause therevnto added 9 Why and howe farre foorth Types Ceremonyes Images and parables are obscurer and darker then the Sacracraments 10 Some signes are naturall some monstruous othersome voluntary 11 The Sacramentes are neyther natural nor monstruous but meerely voluntary 12 Of voluntary signes some are onely for memory others are simply significatiue furthermore by others both some thing past is signified and some thing present is giuen and then that nowe giuen and also to be giuen is sealed The definition of a Sacrament for the signe 13 What a Sacrament is being simply tataken for a signe 14 What the working worde is and generally what is the vse of wordes 15 Sacraments without vse haue not the effect of a Sacrament 16 Christ him selfe not onely that which we obtayne in him is the thing signified both by the simple worde and also by the Sacraments The definition of a Sacrament for the whole mystical action 17 What a Sacrament is being taken for the whole mysticall holy action 18 In what sense the Sacramentes may be sayd to be actions and how they differ properly from sacrifices The peculiar exposition of the definition of Sacraments 19 What are the signes in the Sacraments 20 What analogie or argument is in the Sacraments 21 What the things signified are 22 Why there is sayde to bee a spirituall sealing 23 Why the word of Fayth is to bee expressed in the definition of a Sacrament 24 The obiect in the Sacraments is both the things past and also to come 25 What the sealing or assurance is 26 What that same natural establishment is of our consociation or fellowshyp in Christ 27 What the efficient cause is of Sacraments 28 What the matter of the sacraments is 29 The spirituall and heauenly matter in the Sacraments is threefold 30 Christ is not called the heauenly matter of the Sacraments in respect of the Godhead or for the soule 31 In what sense the body and blood of Christ may be called the spirituall and heauenly matter 32 These mysteries are not mysteries in imagination 33 What the benefit of washing declareth 34 What may be vnderstoode by the benefite of nourishment 35 What it is to apply the benefites of Christ vnto vs in the Sacramentes 36 What the forme of Sacraments is 37 What alteration or chaunge there is in Sacraments 38 The outwarde and inward matter are also essential parts of the Sacraments 39 What are the endes of Sacramentes 40 Of what things past the Sacramentes are remembrances Of the copulation or knitting together of the signes of the things signified in the Sacraments 41 Whether Christ be presēt
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
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
say I baptise thee or whether let the seruaunt of Christe be baptized it maketh no matter so that the fourme of the action it selfe which they exercise bee kept But notwithstanding that I may speake plainely as the matter is the fourme kept in the Latine Churches seemeth vnto mee to come more neerely to the commaundement of the Lord and to be more fitte to confirme the faith of him which is to be baptized Question Why so Answeare Because the Minister speaking of himselfe when he sayeth in the first person I baptise and then addeth the Pronoune thee doeth make the mynde of him which is to be baptized more attentiue aswell to marke the outwarde action as though GOD himselfe were present doyng the selfe same thing by himselfe which the Minister witnesseth by his worde as also too apply the the promise vnto himselfe properly and peculiarly 157. Question But the child which is baptised vnderstandeth none of these thinges Answeare I graunte it but hee shall vnderstande it in his tyme because as I sayd before the vertue of these wordes through out the whole lyfe of them that are baptized sheweth his power in all Tentations so that we being at the very point of death may and ought euen with this onely buckler beat backe all those later temptations of Sathan Auaunt Sathan for when I was yet deaf I heard one that sayde vntoo me in the name and by the commaundement of my Sauiour I baptise thee N. in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost This same baptisme is vntoo me a sure pleadge that I am cleansed from all my sinnes and endued with the righteousnesse of my Christ together with whom I dying and beeyng buried I haue nowe begonne to arise agayne in my minde and shal fully at the length also rise againe in my fleshe to euerlasting life 158. Question But forasmuch as wee sinne euery moment and our sinnes are washed away by baptisme howe commeth it to passe that baptisme is not oftē ministred to one especially seeyng wee minister the Supper of the Lorde oftentimes Answeare It is enough that we are once regenerated and entred intoo the Churche from whence none that is electe is cast out But to bee fed once in the Churche suffiseth not 159. Question Yea but doe not sinnes shut vs out of the kingdome of God Answeare No not so For so none shoulde remayne in the Churche forasmuche as euery one is a lyer that sayth he hath no sinne Oursinnes therefore indeede yea our least sinnes deserue a shutting out from the kingdome of God but to the elect enioying the fauour of GOD they are not imputed Therefore Sainte Paule saide not Rom. 8. 1 that there is no sinne but that there is no condemnation too them which are in Christe Iesus Question Let vs therefore sinne that grace may abounde Answeare Yea but Christian fayth can by no meanes admit this For it beleeueth nothing but that the worde of promise offereth Now there is no promise of pardon but to those that repent and amend and none are further of from repentance and amendment then they that wittingly abuse the patience of GOD to sinne Therefore the gift of true repentance is also properly belonging to the elect 160. Question But what wilte thou say of those that are excommunicated For the lawfull iudgementes of the Churche by the woorde of Christe done in the earth are ratified in the heauens Matth. 18. 18. Nowe they that are excommunicated are cast out of the middest of the Churche 1. Cor. 5. 1. and therefore out of the kingdome of God Answeare No man can more doubte that the iudgement of lawful excommunication is ratified in the heauens then if the Sonne of GOD himselfe should pronounce the sentence forasmuche as the Churche doeth that which it doeth in his name Yet notwithstanding thou gaynest not that thou striuest for For neither the excommunicate persons are simply too be compared too braunches nowe once simply cut of from the Vine but too vnfruitful branches which draw not iuyce out of the Vine and therefore at length too bee cutte off from GOD vnlesse they shortely sprowte agayne which appeareth by the fruites of repentaunce euen like as it falleth out too bowes which in the Winter time bee as they were dead and yet notwithstāding in the spring time receiue their former hewe and liuelinesse againe For those same giftes of God are without repētance Now if so bee any continue vnto the last in their stubbornesse it is a token that they were indeede for a time outwardly in the church but they were neuer of the Churche For they had abidden with vs sayth Saynt Iohn or at least after theyr errour they had returned 1. Iohn 2. 14. vnto vs agayne if they had been of vs. 161. Question But now if Baptisme be therefore not to be often ministred to one because the firste entraunce intoo the Churche cannot be frustrate why in like manner sufficeth it not once too haue receiued the Supper forasmuch as he that is truely once incorporated into the body of Christ can neuer altogether fall out of it Answeare We haue told the cause already For it is ynough once to bee borne agayne but not to be once nourished bicause as in this corporal life we must oftentimes take meate by the iuyce whereof wee may be nourished so beeing incorporated into Christ that wee may more and more be quickened in him the often sealing of that incorporation and as it were the nourishing of fayth is profitable Notwithstanding these thinges in this similitude are altogether diuerse bicause this meate is corruptible which we vse to the vpholding of this life and therefore after the olde another newe alwayes succeedeth but the inwarde meat which is giuen in the holy supper is incorruptible and therefore when the Supper is often vsed neyther is newe meate receiued nor that same first meat as it were before reiected receiued agayne but the same meate which we had taken before is more and more as it were engraffed in vs and by fayth are strengthened that so muche the more effectually we may bee nourished with that that is too say with Christ to euerlasting life 162. Question This bee spoken hitherto of baptisme Nowe let vs come too the other Sacrament of the Christian Churche Howe shall wee call that Answeare Paule calleth it the Supper of our Lorde 1. Cor. 11 20. because that at the first it was celebrated towardes the Euening by the Lorde which also was a long time obserued in the Christian Churche Hee likewise calleth it the Table of the Lorde 1. Cor. 10. 21. 163. Question And is it not otherwise called of the auncient fathers Answeare Therefore also lette vs way these names Certayne men doe in this argument reckon vp the names of the Liturgie or seruice of the Synaxis or the gathering together of the people of Agape the feasts of loue but in my iudge ment not rightly enough For
controuersie about these which I haue rehearsed Answeare Yea and of others also For thou knowest that there is question also what is broken and the worde doe you is taken of some for sacrifice you and againe for make you the body blood of Christ of bread as of late Santesius was not ashamed to write But God willing we will weigh all these things in their proper place 204. Question Nowe I pray thee proceede to the expounding of those things which I haue spoken of and first of all saye thou howe thou thinkest that same This is my body is to bee interpreted Answeare I say that this same proposition dooth consist of a subiecte a Predicate and a coupling Verbe as they speake in Schooles The subiect is declared by the pronoune This they attribute by the tearme of the Body the copulatiue is the verbe substantiue is 205. Question But what is the subiect Answeare Too witte the same that Christe reached foorth taken and broken to witte that same breade as the Euangelistes doe expresse Therefore the woord This can declare nothing els but This Breade too witte the element of this action 206. Question Nowe what is the attribute Answeare That same veryt bodye of Christe giuen and that same bloode shedde for vs. And therefore those same determinations are added that is is giuen and that is shedde 207. Question And howe are these so ioyned togeather that the one may be sayde of the other Answeare To wit this is the nature of thinges which be desparate or sundrie that when they altogeather disagree in kinde the one can not properly bee sayde of the other by no reason because otherwise thinges should not bee discerned from thinges by their specificall fourme Therefore if thou take this proposition properly it shall bee no lesse false that bread is the body of Christ then that a gourde is a man Therefore it must needes be a figuratiue speach Question But thou art not ignorant that the very letter is toughly mainteyned as wel of the defenders of transubstantiation as of consubstantiation Answeare So they say But of them we shall say afterwardes Nowe it is ynough for me to declare the doctrine of our Churches and to shewe vpon what reason it standeth vntill that we shall confute the contrarie opinions 208. Question In what thing then placest thou the figure what in the Subiect Answeare No not so For that same true bread taken broken and giuen is properly shewed in that pronoune Question What onely the bread Answere Yea onely For as we shall say in his place it is not meete here in any case to set the figure Synechdoche This notwithstanding is true that so is shewed not simplie common bread but Sacramentall bread that is bread appoynted to a Sacramentall vse 209. Question What doest thou place a figure in the predicate Answeare I knowe that certaine men doe charge vs so and that not in one kinde of sclaunder For some doe accuse vs as though we should heere vnderstād by the bodie of Christ the Church as though forsooth wee should bee so madde not to marke that those wordes which is giuē for you can not bee vnderstoode of the mysticall bodie or as though in the other member there should be ment some mysticall blood But others because we interprete the bodie the Sacrament or the signe of the bodie by and by they cōclude that wee make a double bodyed Christ or els that we attribute I cānot tel what phantastical bodie of which notwithstanding God be thanked neyther of both is admitted of vs. For wee are so far of frō that that we should say that another then that true and onely bodie of Christ giuen for vs is to be said of that bread that we contrariwise contend that whole Christ God man is there denominated of another nature to wyt the bodily and that for that cause which we haue shewed before 210. Question But if the figure be neither in the Subiecte nor in the Predicate it is no where Answeare Thou gatherest not rightly For thou omittest the third that is to say the copulatyue which knitteth the subiect with the attribute I say then that the figure is in the very kynde of attribution that is that in very deede the true bodie and properly taken is sayde also of the true bread properly taken but figuratiuely not properly So if wee say that Circumcision is the couenaunt or the Scepter is the kingdome or that the Paschall Lambe was Christe it must needes be that the figure be placed neither in the Subiect nor in the Attribute but in the Copulatiue or kinde of attribution 211. Question Why therefore doe you interprete the body the Sacrament or the signe or figure of the body Answeare It is all one to say that that bread is the bodye of Christe but not properly but not as it signifyeth the same Sacramentally and to say that the bread is not that body but onely the Sacrament of that body Therefore that difference that our aduersaries obiect here vnto vs is most vayne and foolish That the fathers aswel Greeks as Latines haue spoken both wayes it is more often shewed of our men then that we ought so often to repeate their sayings 212. Question But nowe what manner of figure sayest thou that this is Answeare I say that it is a Sacramental Metonymia whereby is brought to passe that the name of the thing Sacramentally signified is giuen to the signe or whereby the signe is said to be the thing it selfe to the signifying whereof it is giuen the which thing I haue prooued before by many like examples Question Why doest thou so often beate that same word Sacramentally into our heades Answeare That I may alwayes meete with that same shamefull sclaunder of theirs who as often as they heare the name of signe and signification they crye out that we make the Supper of the Lorde of none effect and as it were transfourme it into an idle picture Vnderstande therefore a Sacramentall Metonymia to be that figure whereby is brought to passe that the signe is sayde to be that thing for the signifying whereof it is so offered to the outwarde senses by a fitte analogie and proportion and by the will of God that therewithall is offered to the vnderstanding and to fayth that same thing signified to bee receyued and sealed truely and in very deede 213. Question But it is harde that some thing should be sayd to be that that onely it signifyeth to the minde Answeare Naye rather as I haue before taught this same figuratiue kinde of speaking is much more fitte and expresse and therfore also more vsual then if by proper speaking the signes shoulde be saide to signifie some thing For when they are said to be the thing it selfe that they signifie they altogether leade the mynde of the beholder from the visible thing to behold the inuisible and to lay holde vppon it by Fayth which is the ende of Sacramentes Question
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