therfore man shall leaue father and mother and shall sticke to his wyfe If ther be great difference betwene the nature of the man and of the woman and that of other liuing creatures cōcerning the very bodie the difference is yet much more greate concerning the soule forsomuche as the other lyuing creatures were not created to the image and lykelynesse of God as man was wherefore they haue not a soule of a heauenly and diuine nature as he hath P. Thou séest then alredy here the vnion and communion of Nature that man and woman haue togither as well of body as of soule and the difference that is betwene them and all other liuing creatures in all these two pointes M. I do nowe vnderstande well this vnion and communion of nature whiche is betwene man and woman withoute the whiche they coulde not be allied togither by marriage as man and wife P. Thou oughtest in like sorte to vnderstande that we maye haue also no communicatoin with Iesus Christe if we haue not first the same communion of nature with him whereby he was made man lyke vnto vs as touching the nature and substance of the flesh M. I haue well vnderstood that which thou hast alredy sayde to that purpose concerning the communion of nature the whiche he hath of nature with vs and not at all with the Angells Of an other more speciall vniō and coniunction which is proper to marriage vvhich is betvvene Iesus Christ and his Churche M. NOw it is not inough to be vnited ioyned togither by mariage to be of one very humane nature that the one be masle the other femasle but it is also requisite that there be a more neare and a more speciall vnion and coniunction M What is that other coniunction P. It is a coniunction which is made by aliance by the whiche the man and the woman that are vnited ioyned togither by the same haue a speciall communion betwene thē the which the husbande hath not with other women nor the woman with other men M. I do wel vnderstand that ther is no suche coniunction and communion of body and goods and of al things among al other men and women that are not married togither as ther is betwene the man and the wife by the alliance and coniunction of marriage that is betwene them P. It is very true For this vnion and cōmunion is suche that the husbande hathe not power of his owne body but the wife as also the wife hath not power of hirs but the husband M. If there be such communion and coniunction of body there is no doubte but it is also of all good euill that may happē vnto thē togither P. It is euē so by the special cōmuniō which Iesus Christ hath with the faithful that the faithfull haue with hym by the power of the holy ghost which ioyneth thē with him by true lyuing faith M. Thou meanest then that there is so great differēce betwene the cōmuniō that is betwéen Iesus christ the faithful in respect of the vnfaithful as is betwen that which is betwene the mā the wife in respect of other mē womē P. It is euen so For the only cōmuniō of nature maketh not cōmuniō of body goodes betwene al men and women as doth the coniunction of marriage the whiche the husband the wife haue togither M. Thou wilt thē say in like sorte that the communion of nature the which Iesus Christ hath commō with all mē doth not carie with it such communiō of al things as doth that which he hath special with the faithful by means of the faith which thei haue in him P. the vnbeleuers haue nothing cōmō with Iesus christ but that thei ar mē of the same human nature but the faithfull haue this more which is the principall that all that they haue is common to Iesus Christ with them and that whiche Iesus Christe hath is common to them also M. What is it that Iesus Christe may take of them forsomuch as they be all none other than poore and sinfull men P. He taketh vppon him their sinnes and the paine whiche is due vnto them as though he himselfe had committed them and that he were guiltie to discharge and delyuer them M. He taketh then nothing of vs but onely the euill whiche is in vs P. What other thyng may he take séeing that there is none other thing in vs But the nature of the alliance and communion which we haue with him thorough faith bringeth it for otherwise ther should be no perfect communion and so the alliance shoulde not be full if there were no participation of good and euill suche as it shoulde and oughte to be among those whiche be allyed M. Then on the contrary it muste be following the nature of this communion and alliance that wée receiue of Iesus Christe the good things which are in him as he doth the euill that is in vs P. It is so to be vnderstode M. Behold a communion and alliance which is greatly to our aduauntage P. It is wholly to oure aduantage and therfore it should so much the more inflame vs in the loue of God and rauishe and carrie vs away in admiration of his goodnesse of Iesus Christ our Lord and of that most excessiue loue wherewith he hathe loued vs. M. That same communion is it the same that is in the Symbole of the Apostles vpon the whiche we are at this presente the communion of Sainctes P. It is the verye same And bicause it is made by the power of the holy Ghoste we will speake more largely of it when we shal speake of the holy Ghost and of the Churche How that Iesus Christe can not be the sauiour of mankinde vnlesse hee haue as well an humane soule as an humane bodie M. I Vnderstand now well by that whiche thou hast expoūded vnto me concerning the humane nature of Iesus Christ that wée could haue no saluation by him if he had not a verye bodie of oure fleshe and substance and that we were fleshe of his fleshe and bone of his bones and except we had suche alliance with hym as ther is betwene the husbād the wife But I would gladly that thou diddest shew me somthing more plainly the causes for the which it is also requisite for our saluation that Iesus Christe haue an humane soule as wel as an humane body P. Euen as we could not be saued if he had not suffered in our humane fleshe and borne the paine for vs whiche we haue deserued by our sinnes it is euen the like concerning the soule M. For what cause P. For bicause that if he had suffred but in our bodie in our flesh he should not then haue satisfied but in our flesh and in our body and for them only and not for the soule And so shoulde it haue come to passe the bodie should bée saued and not the
as witnesses and solemne othes by whome wede as it were homage to God and do make profession of our faith and Religion A. It is euen so Of the number of Sacraments vvhich are in the Chucrhe of Christ D. How many Sacramentes are there in Christ his Church A. There are but two whiche may be properly accoumpted for true Sacraments D. Which is the firste A. That of baptisme D. And the seconde A. The supper Of Baptisme D. What is baptisme A. It is a sacramēt by the which Iesus Christ doth offer vnto vs the remission of our sinnes and our regeneration vnder the figure of the water as he doth in déede communicate the same vnto vs by his holy spirite D. Doth it any thing else A. In like sorte it testifieth to vs that he receyueth vs into his Churche as true members of the same D. And of our parte what do we A. We testifie in lyke sorte that we acknowledge him for suche an one as he declareth himselfe towardes vs and that we beleue that he maketh vs partakers of all his great riches Of the Supper D. What is the supper A. It is a Sacrament by the which Iesus Christ doth present vnto vs vnder the signes of bread and wine the communion that we haue with him and with his Church D. Is there nothing else represented vnto vs in it A. The spirituall nouriture that we haue by faith in his flesh and in his bloud whiche haue ben giuen for vs. D And as touching the rest do we not there make the same profession of our faith that we do in baptisme A. It must be so vnderstood for so muche as such is the nature of all Sacraments and one of the principall ends and purposes for the which they are ordeyned of God. To vvitte vvhether the bread the wine be conuerted into the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper D. Dost thou thinke that this bread and this wine that are giuen for signes in the Sacramente be the very naturall body and bloud of Iesus Christ A. If they were his very naturall bodie and bloud they could then not be the signes of it D. Why not A. For so much as if it were so there should be no difference betwene the signes and the things whiche they signifie D. Is there none other inconuenient A. There is also this inconuenient that if it were so this doctrine shoulde be wholly contrary to the articles of oure faith and namely to that of the ascention of Iesus Christ into heauen Of the coniunction of the signes in the supper vvith the thinges that they signifie D. Dost thou then thinke that the body and bloud are vnited and ioyned togither naturally and corporally with the bread and the wine A. No especially for two causes D. Whiche is the firste A. Seing there is question of spirituall nouriture in this holy Table we may not imagine here a materiall meate which is eaten on the same table as is bodily meate D. Which is the second A. It is that we shal fall into the same inconuenient whereof we haue euen now spoken touching the articles of our faith D. Do we then receiue ther nothing els but material bread and wine A. Yes that we do D. What is it A. The very body and bloud of Iesus Christ signified to vs by them Of the presence of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper D. How may we receiue them if they be not there euen as thou saist A. I sayd not but that they were in dede in the supper or otherwise it should not be the true supper of Iesus Christ D. How dost thou thē vnderstande it A. Albeit that I denie the bodie and the bloud to be there naturally and carnally I denie not therefore but that they be there giuen and receyued spiritually in déede euen as that sacramente witnesseth it vnto vs. D. Thou doest not then denie the presence of the very body and very bloud of Iesus Christ in the supper A. No. D. What wilte thou then say for full resolution A. I will only say that the manner of that presence is not carnall and materiall but spirituall and diuine Of them to vvhome the communion of Sacramentes doth belong D. Seing then we vnderstande what the true nature of Sacraments is shewe me now which they be to whome they oughte to be administred A. It is easie to vnderstand by that which hath alredy bin said of the nature of them D. How dost thou vnderstand it A. Seing they be as seales of the worde of God and of the alliance that he hath made with his people and as a protestation of our faith towarde the same the matter is very playne that they belōg but only to those which vouch that doctrine and aliance and are comprised in the same Of the proofe that is required of euery man in the Supper D. Bycause that the supper is not administred but to such as are alredy at the age of discretion shew me how euery man ought to prepare himself for to receiue the same A. Sainct Paule giueth the rule when he admonisheth euery mā to proue himselfe D. What meaneth he by that proofe of himselfe A. That euery man do diligently examine him selfe whether he haue in him the things without the which he may not worthyly communicate at the holy Sacramente Of the principall points vppon the which euery man ought to examine and proue himselfe D. Whiche be those things A. There be chiefly thrée as men maye iudge by the matters that we haue handled heretofore De. Whiche is the first An. It is true repentaunce and a true acknowledging of his offences and sinnes for the whiche Iesus Christe dyed as he declareth vnto vs by the same holy sacrament D. Whiche is the second A. True faith in the onely grace and mercie of God whiche is offered and graunted vnto vs in Iesus Chryst and by Iesus Chryst as that Sacrament also testifyeth De. The thirde An. True charitie and vnion towarde all the membres of Iesus Christ as it is represented vnto vs in that wée there eate all of one self bread and drink all of one selfe cuppe Of the ministers of the Churche and of Magistrates D. There resteth nowe but one pointe it is to witte by whome these sacramentes ought to be administred A. By those same ministers to whome the charge to administer the worde of God hath bene committed by lawfull order as he hathe ordeyned in his Churche De. Is it lawfull then for none other An. As GOD hath ordeyned that there should be in the common wealth certain Magistrates and officers for the administration of ciuile and earthlye matters to the ende there shoulde be no confusion euen so hathe he willed his Churche to haue hir ministers chosen by lawfull vocation as his officers for the administration of Ecclesiasticall and spirituall matters to the ende that euery thing bée there handled and gouerned
procéede Wherfore if there be any sinne that deserueth to be accompted sinne it is that same Of the meane vvhereby man maye be deliuered from sinne and from the vvrathe of God vvhiche sinne bringeth to him M SEing then that mā can find in himselfe no remedie to with-holde him from that bottomlesse pitte of perdition where is it that he shal fynd it elsewhere P. In God only who only canne reforme hym to his Image as at the fyrste hee did and formed him according to the same M. But by what meane may he obtayne so greate a good thing of God considering that he hath so greatly offended him and procured his wrath P. It is certaine that no man may haue accesse to God to obteyne saluation of him without a mediatoure by whome he may be made at one with him Of the causes for the vvhich there is neyther man nor Angell sufficiente to the office of mediatoure betvvene God and man and of the greatnesse of the vvrath of God against sinne M. ANd who is this mediatoure which may make this appointmente P. For so much as all men are in like faulte and condemnation there is none among them sufficient for that office of what holynesse and qualitie soeuer he be Mat. Where must he then be sought Shall it be among the Angells whiche haue no sinne P. The very Angells can not be sufficiente therevnto M. Why not P. Chiefly for two causes M. Whiche is the first P. It is that the wrath and cursse of God is so heauie a burden that there is no creature whatsoeuer he be neyther in heauen nor in the earth that may beare it but that he shall be beaten downe with it vtterly M. What is the cause there P. It is bicause that the offence through sinne committed is done against God which is infinite and an eternall prince and king wherefore it deserueth also paines infinite and eternall M. Haue we any testimonie of the same P. The angells which haue sinned may be sure testimonies vnto vs. M. In what sorte P. If that they which were so excellent creatures coulde not themselues beare that which they had deserued for their parte how may one amongst them beare all that that all mankind hath deserued togither M. This reason is very plaine But which is the other cause that maketh that the very Angells are not sufficient to such an office P. For so much as seing that the offence was cōmitted by mā it must also be repaired in him by him M. For what cause P. To the ende that God may be founde true and iust and also mercifull togither Of the setting forth of the iust iudgemēt of the mercy of god in the redēptiō of mā M. HOw doste thou vnderstande the same P. If god did not punish mā acording to the desert of his transgression and according to the threatnings that he himself hath giuen vnto him the sentence that he hath giuen against him where should the truth iustice of God be M. I vnderstand well this point but what wilt thou say of his mercy P. In like sort if he punished man according to his desert where should then this mercy be by the which he sheweth forth his infinit goodnesse more than by any other vertue whatsoeuer that is in him Of the only true mediator Iesus Christ M. If there be neyther man nor Angel sufficient to that office what other mean resteth then by the which that fault of man may be repaired by him in him P. Bycause that man could not among all the creatures find any God hath prouided according to the pietie compassion that he had of him being moued by his only mercy and inestimable charitie M. Which is this mean P. It is that he hath giuen his only sonne Iesus Christe to do this office M. And what mean hath he obserued in this worke P. It is that Iesus Christ being the Eternal true God of one only essence with the father toke humain flesh in the womb of the virgin Marie by the very ordināce of God his father M. What néed was there that he should take humain fleshe vpon him to execute that office P. It was euen so necessarie to the ende that in the same he might satisfie the iust iudgement of God for all men Of the vnion of the diuine and humaine nature in the person of Iesus Chryst and of the causes of the same M. Was it necessary that the same mediator should be very God and very man togither in one very person P. It is euen so chiefly for thrée causes M. Which is the first P. It is that if he had not bene very man he could not haue suffred in our flesh nature that which he hath suffered was to suffer for vs. M. And if he had not suffred the same what incōuenience shuld ther haue ben P. That he shuld not haue born for vs in our nature fleshe the wrath curse of God which we had deserued and then he should not haue satisfied the iudgement of God thorowe his obedience to put away by the same in our own flesh and nature the rebellion by the whiche we haue deserued this iudgemente M. Which is the other cause P. It is that if he had ben but only man and that he had not ben vnited with God being very God and very man in one very person he could not haue ben able to beare this burden of the wrath of god which is so greate and so importable but that he shoulde haue ben swallowed vp how iust or innocent soeuer he shulde haue ben M. Which is the thirde P. It is that he shoulde not haue ben able also to haue brought saluation and life to man if he had not had the fountaine in him selfe by meane of his diuine nature Of the sacrifice and satisfaction of Iesus Christ and of the vertue therof M. WHich is then the meane whereby Iesus Christe hath satisfied for vs in his humaine nature and fleshe P. It is the sacrifice that he himselfe hath made of his owne body and bloud by his passion and death M. Howe is the sacrifice of Iesus Christ of such vertue P. For two principall causes M. Whiche is the first P. The paine the which he béeing innocent hath endured for vs whiche were culpable by the which payne he who had not deserued it hath deliuered vs from it which we haue deserued M. Which is the seconde P. It is the perfecte obedience whiche he hath yelded to God his father in recompence of the transgression and rebellion which was founde in vs. Of the communication in the benefites of Iesus Christ M. IS it sufficiente that he is deade and that he hath yelded to God his father one such an obedience P. If that same were ynough all shoulde be saued indifferently as well infidels as faithfull men M. What is more required then P. That
whiche we do also obtaine dayly remission of all our sinnes For albeit that our sanctification be not yet thoroughly perfecte yet notwithstanding that same letteth not but that our iustification is alredy perfecte M. Doest thou meane that our iustification doth supplie that which wanteth of our sanctification P. I can not tel whether thou takest my wordes as though I meant that we might satisfie towards God in parte by our good works the which we impute to satisfactiō and that Iesus Christ shuld satisfy only for the rest for vs by the same that may be on his side being alowed vnto vs by the iustificatiō For if thou didst so vnderstand it thou shuldest greatly deceiue thy selfe M. Wherein P. Chiefly in two points M. Shew me the first P. It is in that thou shouldest spoile God at the least of a great parte of the honor which is due vnto him for the saluation which we haue of him by Iesus Chryste and the other parte we shall attribute to man. M. In what sorte P. In that that by this meane he should be our sauioure but for the one halfe and wée for the other M. Which is the other point P. It is that thou shouldest presente to God a satisfaction ouermuche imperfecte M. I confesse if I should present vnto him but my works but when I shal present vnto him my works for satisfaction and thē the satisfaction whiche Christ hath made for me with them What imperfection then may more remaine P. If the satisfaction of Iesus Christ be sufficiente thou néedest to present none other to God if it be not sufficiente thou canst not satisfie that whiche maye there wante by any thing that thou canst do M. Why not P. Bycause that God can allowe nothing for satisfaction which is not pure sounde and perfecte as he is Of the distinction that ought to be had betvvene the cause of our saluation and the testimonie of the same M. EXpounde vnto me somewhat more plainly thy meaning in this P. I will say vnto thée for the firste that we must put difference in this matter betwene the cause of our saluation and the testimonie of the same and then afterwarde betwene the sanctification by Iesus Christe whiche is imputed to vs and that whiche is ioyned to our person M. What thinkest thou to be the cause of our saluation P. Iesus Christ dwelling in vs by faith M. What meanest thou by the testimonie that we haue of the same P. The sanctification whereof we nowe speake M. Howe doest thou vnderstande that it is the testimonie of our saluation and of the cause of the same and not the cause it selfe P. For bycause it testifieth that Iesus Christ dwelleth in vs as the effecte testifieth of his cause M. What followeth thereof P. That the cause is there seing that we sée the effects to wit Iesus Christ with all his gifts graces Of the difference that must be put betvvene the sanctification by Christ vvhich is atributed vnto vs and that vvhich is ioyned to our person as a qualitie sticking to the same M. ANd what inconueniente were it to holde our sanctification for the cause of our saluation P. For the better vnderstāding of al this matter it is méete that I expound vnto thée yet the differēce betwene the sanctificatiō of Iesus Christ which is allowed vs whereof I haue euē now spoken and that which is ioyned to our proper perso and then the frutes of the same M. What difference dost thou put therein P. I do call sanctification properly that whiche we consider in the very person of Iesus Chryste the which sanctification is not properlye ours as a qualitie cōiuncte to our person but only by imputation M. What meanest thou by that imputation P. That it is allowed vnto vs as his iustice is attributed and allowed vnto vs by the iustificatiō which we obteyne in him by faith Mat. Is that the cause why Sainct Paule saith that God hath made Iesus Chryste vnto vs wisdome iustice sanctification and redemption P. There is no doubte of it but it must be considered that beside this kinde of sanctification that is so imputed and allowed vnto vs there is yet an other that is ioyned to our very person not only by imputation but as a qualitie sticking in vs whiche procéedeth from that first kind of sanctificatiō wherof we haue euen now spoken M. What vertue hath euery of them in vs P. The firste doth fully sanctifie vs before God bycause it is full and perfecte M. The other is it not of the same nature and force P. No. For it sanctifieth vs but in parte M. For what cause P. Bycause that it is but begonne in vs and not perfecte wherefore it cannot fully sanctifie vs excepte it be full and perfecte M. And when shall it be so P. When our regeneration and reformation to the Image of God shall be M. It shall not then bée in this mortall life P. It is true but it shal be in the life to come in the whiche our life whiche is now hiddē in Iesus Christ shal be shewed and what we be shall appeare when we shall be made like to the glorious body of Iesus Christ Of the cause of the difference that is in these tvvo kindes of sanctification M. WHat is the very cause of this difference that thou puttest betwene these two kindes of sanctification P. I call the first perfecte For that that it is the very sanctification not only of the whiche Iesus Christe is sanctified in hys flesh and humane nature but also by reason whereof he is called the holy one of holy ones For so muche as by the communication of the same he doth sanctifie all his elected to make them holy and without blame before God who hathe chosen them therevnto M. If it be the same sanctification wherewith Iesus Christ is sanctified and doth sanctifie others it is very certaine that it cannot be but perfecte P. If it be perfecte in him it is also perfecte in vs in so much as dwelling in vs by faith we haue him with all the holynesse that he bringeth with hym the which we euer drawe out of him as of his true fountaine the which we haue is our selues whē we haue Iesus christ M. If we haue in Iesus Christe the fountaine of all holynesse whereby we are continually and perpetually sanctified What other imperfecte sanctification may then be in vs P. That which we cōsider in our owne proper fleshe and nature regenerate and renewed by the spirite of God which is as it were watered with the streames of that fountaine of all sanctification to make vs bring foorth the frutes of true sanctification and holynesse in the stead of the frutes of sinne which it brought foorth in time before as the earth whiche being cursed and barren is afterwarde made fertile and beareth better frutes by the blessing of God. Of
seconde P. Touching his humane nature M. And the thirde P. Concerning the vnion of the two natures Of the faith of the Christians concerning the diuine and humane natures of Iesus Christe M. WHat must we beléeue of his diuine nature P. That he is very God without beginning and withoute ende of one essence with the father and that he is his eternall word wisedome M. And cōcerning his humane nature P. That he is very man hauing a very mans bodie of our fleshe of oure blend bones a very humane soule as other mē haue and that he was made in euery point like vnto vs sinne excepted Hovv the diuine and humaine natures vvhich are in the person of Iesus Christ do not make two Iesus Christs but one only M. WHat canst thou yet say of the vnion of these two natures beside that whiche thou hast alredy spoken when thou handledst the office of mediatoure of Iesus Christe P. It is that they be so vnited togither that they remayne alwayes in their very naturall in one very person M. What meanest thou thereby P. That being so vnited they make vs not two Iesus Christes to witte the one God and the other man but one only whiche is very God and very man togither in one onely person euen as the body and soule of man make one onely mā and one only person and not twaine M. This vnion of these two natures thē is very necessarie to oure saluation P. Thou maist well know that as well by that which we haue alredy sayd touching this matter as by the office whiche was assigned vnto Iesus Christ by his father For there is no one Iesus Christ whiche being but only God coulde haue saued man nor coulde haue dyed for them and an other being but only man might dye for them but coulde not haue power to saue them nor to beare the iudgement of God for their sinnes VVhether the diuine nature be in Iesus Christ in stead of the soule or else that he hath a very humane soule M. DOest thou meane by this that the diuine nature of Iesus Christe is in stead of a soule to the humaine nature P. If the diuine nature were in stead of a soule to the humane nature and that Iesus Christe had no very humane soule he should be no true and perfect man. M. For what cause P. Bicause that the principall parte of man whiche is the soule shuld be wanting in him for this cause I haue saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was very man compounded of a very humane body and a very humane soule How the eternall worde of God became fleslie M. THou hast saide heretofore that Iesus Christ was the eternall worde of God. Now Sainct Iohn saith that that worde whiche is very God eternall became flesh Pe. What meanest thou by that Doest thou thinke that the same worde of God was conuerted into fleshe in suche sorte that it was no more the eternall worde of God but fleshe and that the Sonne of God which is that word of God being God before that time did so become man that he is no more God but man only M. Thou hast giuen me well to vnderstande by that whiche thou hast euen now said of the diuinitie and humanitie of Iesus Christ that we may not so thinke of him but bycause Saincte Iohn maketh mention but of the flesh when he saith that that word became flesh a man might thinke that he spake but of the body and not at al of the soule but that this worde of God vnited with the body was to it in stead of a soule P. If Sainct Iohn had mente so he wold rather haue said as it is elsewhere said in the holy scripturs that Iesus Christe had taken the séede of Abraham to witte our flesh and not the Angells M. Why is it then that he maketh mention but of the flesh seing that it is the least and most vile parte of man P. I can yeld vnto thee chiefly two reasons M. Which is the first P. It is bycause the holy Scriptures do take oft times a part for the whole And therefore it taketh now the flesh now the soule for the whole man complete M. Which is the seconde reason P. It is that when the holy Scripture doth vse the name of fleshe to signifie the whole man she vseth that manner of speach to admonish men of the infirmities that are in them to the end they may vnderstande that they are but men mortall and not Gods immortall M. Hath Sainct Iohn had regarde therevnto whē he said that the Sonne of God was made fleshe P. There is no doubt of it But it is in an other regarde For albeit that Iesus were very god as touching hys diuine nature that he toke our flesh without any spot of sinne when he was made mā that he hath vnited his diuine nature with the humane nature yet for al that he was so exempte frō all sin that notwithstāding he wold be subiect without sinne to al the infirmities and miseries wherevnto men are subiecte bycause of theyr sinnes M. Thou meanest then that thys worde of flesh emporteth all that same and that it doth better expresse in what manner and to what condition and ende the sonne of God did take our nature to him and was made man than if he had spoken otherwise P. It is euen so and therefore he doth also call himselfe so oftentimes the sonne of man to giue vs to vnderstande that he is not only a very naturall man descended of the race of Adam of the which al others are descended but also that he made himselfe subiecte to all the miseries and necessities of man whervnto men are subiect always excepted any spotte of sinne Of the conception of Iesus Christ and of the nature of his fleshe M. NOwe séeing that that humayne flesh which Iesus Christ hath taken for vs is exempte from all sinne where is then that he toke it Did he bring it from Heauen with hym or else did he take it vppon the Earthe P. When thou confessest that hée was conceiued of the holy Ghost and borne of the virgine Mary thou confessest that he toke it vppon earth in the wombe of that holye virgin M. But coulde he not haue passed thorow the womb of the virgin with a heauenly fleshe withoute taking any thing of hir fleshe P. If he had brought from heauen that flesh which he hath and that it were a flesh of a heauenly and diuine nature which he should not haue taken in the wombe of the virgin and of the proper fleshe and bloud of hir we could not say truly that she had conceyued and borne him and consequently that he were very man of oure proper fleshe and bloud whiche we haue of oure first father Adam VVherevnto the genealogie of Iesus Christe according to the fleshe dothe serue vs. M. I Thinke S. Mathew and S. Luke woulde giue vs to vnderstande
that whiche thou sayest when they did wryte the genealogie of Iesus Christ the which is broughte foorth by S. Matthewe euen from Abraham and by S. Luke from Adam euen to Iesus Chryst P. They haue had regarde to that whiche thou sayest in déede but they would shew further that he was the true Chryst and the true Sauiour and redéemer that was promised to Israell bycause that hée was descended of the lyue of those of whome the holy Ghoste hathe forespoken by the mouthe of the holy patriarches Prophetes that he shoulde descende Of the woorkes of the holye Ghost in the conception of Iesus Christ M. BVt if he haue taken his fleshe of the line and of the proper fleshe of men who are all sinners howe could he be more without sinne in his fleshe than other men P. The angel hath answered this difficultie when he sayd to the virgin that she should conceiue the sonne of God by the power and workyng of the holye Ghost Mathevve What meanest thou by that vertue and working of the holie Ghost P. I meane that the holy Ghost wrought in that conception so by hys diuine power that the fleshe whyche Iesus Christe tooke of the Virgine Marie was in suche sorte sanctifyed that he dyd purifie and exempt it from all sinne and from all the corruption whereby the whole nature of man is corrupted bycause of sinne that is naturally in it Of the true substance of the bodie of Iesus Christe M. WE may not then imagine in Iesus Chryste a bodie that is so heauenly and diuine that it is not a very mans bodye of verie humane fleshe and substance but wée must beléeue in déede that he is of verye humane substaunce as wée are Pet. Thou concludest verye well And in lyke sorte also wée maye not imagine that this humane bodie of Iesus Christ is a bodie only in apparance as a fantasme as some heretikes haue affirmed auncientlye For if hee hadde not taken a verye mans bodie wée coulde haue no hope of Saluation by him The eyght Dialogue is of the communion betwene Iesus Christe and man. Of the communion of the nature vvhich Iesus Chryst hath with man and not with angels and how necessarie it is to mans saluation MATHEVV DEclare to mée the cause why mā can not be saued if Iesus Chryste had no cōmunion of nature with him P. Why are not the angels also which sinned saued by the deathe and passion of Iesus Christe the whiche are called diuels in the holie Scriptures as well as man who hath sinned as they haue doone M. Bicause that Iesus Christ was not sente by the Father to that effecte and he also came not to saue them but man only P. For that cause also he hath not taken the nature of angels to haue communication of nature with them and to vnite it with his diuine nature to satisfie for them in their owne nature as it pleased him to be vnited with man by vnion of nature to satisfie for them in their owne fleshe as though they themselues did satisfie in their owne person the which he hath endured and represented before the iudgement of God. M. Thou wilte then saye that it was necessarie that the son of God should communicate with our fleshe and bloud by that same vnion of nature and that without this vnion and cōmunication we cannot be saued and redemed by him P. If it hadde not ben necessarie that he should haue had such vnion and communication with vs to revnite vs and to cal vs againe into the sauour of God it had not béen néedfull that he had beene made man. M. God hath then doone vs an honour and shewed vs a fauour in the person of his sonne howe poore and wicked sinners soeuer we be whiche he hath not doone to the angels whiche sinned P. In that same we may know howe much he hath loued vs of his owne goodnesse and howe great and infinite his charitie was towarde vs Wherefore we should also by the same very meane well learne to knowe howe well we ought to loue him on oure parts Of two sortes of vnion and communion vvhiche Iesus Christe hath with man without the which no man can obtayne saluation M. BVt is it sufficient for the saluation of man that the sonne of God was made man to beare the iudgemente the wrathe and cursse of God in their owne nature and their owne fleshe Pe. If that were sufficient al shold be saued indifferently aswel the reprobats as the elect the vnbeleuers as the faithful as we haue alredie touched it heretofore M. Is there then any other maner of vnion cōmunion whereby we must be vnited ioyned with Iesus Christ to obtein saluatiō by him P. Thou mayst iudge by that which we haue alredy sayd of the comuniō that we haue with him thorough faith and of the iustification by the same M. I do very wel remember that thou hast already somwhat touched it but I woulde very gladly that thou didst expoūd the same vnto me somwhat more largely P. The communication of the which we haue nowe spoken is natural and therfore it is common to al men with Iesus Chryst in so much as they be of the same nature of the same flesh that he hathe taken for vs. Ma. And the other Pe. It is spirituall and therefore it is more speciall for it is not generally common to al but it is only propre to the elect and faithfull Of the spirituall marriage betweene Iesus Chryste and his Churche and firste of the vnion of nature that is required in this mariage M. EXpound to me what this vnion and cōmunion conteineth more thā the first P. I wil declare vnto thée by similitude of mariage wherof S. Paul hath vsed to this purpose in the epist. to the Ephesiās M. Expounde vnto me then the similitude P. Nature doth shew vs also teach vs the aliāce cōmuniō of mariage coulde not be betwene mā womā if they were not both liuīg creatures of one very kind and of one very flesh nature M. Albeit that the brute beasts haue ben created of the same very matter whereof man and woman ar created as concerning the bodie yet for al that I know wel that there is greate difference touching the kindes and that man and woman haue a farre other vnion and communion of fleshe and nature together thā w other liuing creatures whiche we do call beastes P. And therfore after that god had created Adam and that his pleasure was to giue him an ayde in mariage he woulde create thys ayde whiche is the woman of the verye flesh and substance of Adam himselfe to the ende that they shuld be one very flesh and one verie body as in déede Adam did right wel know when he saw the womā immediately after that she was so created Wherfore he sayd This here is flesh of my fleshe and bone of my bones and
Chryste thorough faythe after that GOD by the same hathe iustified vs by his holye Spirite in Iesus Chryste oure Lorde he dothe also sanctifye vs communicating vnto vs his gyftes and Graces whyche are the frutes of Faythe to the ende that we shoulde bée dedicated and consecrated vnto hym all the dayes of our lyfe to serue and honour hym as hys childrē regenerate by his holy spirite into a newe life Ma. Thou doest reporte faith to iustification and charitie to the worke of sanctification whiche are both works of the holy Ghost P. Thou maiest vnderstand it by the discourse whiche we haue already made of iustification and sanctification In vvhat sorte charitie is necessary to saluation M. CHaritie is not then necessarie to saluation nor other like vertues but faith only P. It is necessary there vnto and not necessary M. I do not well vnderstand this speache for it is contrary in it selfe P. I say that faith is necessary therevnto as cause of saluation withoute the whiche we cannot obtayne it for the causes which I haue alredy declared For somuch as it is the instrument the whiche the holy Ghoste giueth vs wherewith to receiue him when he is offered vnto vs by Iesus Christ and the meane whereby he doth communicate him to vs in hym and by him But charitie is not there ioyned as a cause of saluation without the which we cannot be partakers of it but as a thing ioyned vnto it the whiche followeth faith in suche sorte whiche is the true cause of saluation as I haue already sayde that she cannot be separate no more than the heate from the lighte or the mouing or féeling from the life and from the soule But yet notwithstandyng we haue not saluation thereby no more than brightnesse by the heate the whiche we haue of the lighte or else life by the motion and féeling M. Charitie then and good workes may not be taken for causes by the which or by whose meane we obtaine saluation but onely so farre as they cannot be separated frō true faith by the which we ar made partakers of it P. It is euen so M. Thou hast here opened vnto me one point that was very harde to vnderstande the whiche séemeth to me very well worthy to be diligently noted For there bée fewe whiche do well vnderstande it Peter If all men did well vnderstande it there woulde be no more differente betwene the Christians touching iustification and touching faith and workes and grace and merites and the causes of oure saluation for that whiche we haue sayde of charitie is also vnderstoode of all the other vertues and workes of the regenerate man as I haue alredy sayde whiche are the frutes the which Saincte Paule doth call the frutes of the spirite and the which he doth oppone to the frutes of the flesh Of the regeneration of a Christian man. M. SEing that thou arte lighted vppon the pointe of regeneration me thinketh that it should be also comprehended among those giftes of the holy Ghost the which thou sayest do belong but to the elect of God and be so necessarie to saluation that none may attayne vnto it without them P. It must be so vnderstoode for it is of the chiefe of them and in very déede it is the principall pointe whiche maketh vs to vnderstande the cause why we do cal worke of viuification and sanctification that thirde worke of God whereby we say that God hathe declared himselfe vnto men Ma. Expounde the same to me somewhat more plainely P. Thys worde of regeneration as thou mayest well vnderstande emporteth as muche as a man moughte saye newe birth as if after that we are once borne we are borne yet agayne Mathevve I sée well that the worde of regeneration importeth euen so Peter And therefore it importeth foorthwith a reformation of the man whiche is a rising agayne from the deade whiche is wroughte in the Spirite as the last resurrection shall be wroughte in the fleshe Mathevve What meanest thou by that resurrection of the Spirite Peter Séeing that thorough sinne man is deade of spirituall death whiche bringeth afterwarde death of the body he is as it were risen from that deathe when by Iesus Christe he is in suche sorte delyuered from sinne that he is by the vertue of hys holye Spirite made as it were a manne thoroughly newe or as a manne who hauinge béene deade shoulde haue recouered hys lyfe and shoulde bée raysed agayne Mathevve Thou puttest then so great difference betwene the man whiche abideth still in his firste nature corrupted through sinne and hée which is deliuered from the same corruption and is quickened and regenerated by the holy Ghoste as thou puttest betwene a dead and a liuing man. P. There is no difference but in asmuch as the spirituall death is much more worthy to be called death than is the corporall death and that the estate of the man dead thorough sinne is much more perillous and daungerous than is the estate of the man which is dead but bodily Of the life of the regenerate man. M. Séeing that man is as it were risen from death and borne a new when he is regenerate by the holy Ghost it followeth then necessarily that he do other works after that he is regenerate than he did before his regeneration P. Thou mayest wel vnderstand that if there be so greate differēce betwene the mā regenerate the not regenerate as is betweene a dead and a liuing man it must also necessarily come to passe that there bee as great difference betwene the workes of the one and the other M. I do euen so vnderstand it P. And therfore Iesus Chryst hath sayd that what is borne of fleshe is fleshe and what is borne of the spirite is spirit For euen as a dead bodie can bring forth but infection and corruption euen so on the contrary a liuing body doth the works of lyfe bicause of the liuing soule that he hath more than hath the dead bodie M. It foloweth then that the faith wherby man is viuified and regenerate is vnto him as the soule which bringeth to him spiritual life and that the vnfaithful and not regenerate man is as a body without a soule P. S. Paule following the prophet Abacuk giueth thée playnly to vnderstand that it is so by that whiche he sayth The iust man shall liue of his faith Wherefore if the iust man do liue of his faith it followeth then that Faith is to his soule to giue it spirituall lyfe that whiche the naturall soule is to the bodie to giue it corporall lyfe Mathevv There are then two things to be considered in the regenerate spiritual man to wit Faith which is in him as the soule whiche giueth him spiritual lyfe euen as the soule naturall which giueth corporall lyfe to the body then the workes of the spirite are ioyned to it which are the works of faith which is the spiritual soule euen as the works of life
that a man mought finde in all things if the feare of God goodnesse iustice and holynesse be wanting P. Thou concludest very well And therfore Iesus Christ sayd to hys Apostles whiche did glory bycause the deuills were subiect to them by meane of the gifte of miracle which was giuē to them Reioice not saide he in that that the spirites are subiecte to you but reioyce in that that your names are writtē in Heauen M. What meaneth he thereby Pe. That they should much more estéeme the fauoure whiche God had shewed vnto them in that that he had chosen them to bée his children and heires and that hée had made them partakers of the giftes by meane whereof they haue obtayned such a benefite than in that that he gaue them the gifte of miracles yea indéede than in that that he made them Apostles For Iudas was chosen an Apostle and had the gifte of prophecie and of miracles as we haue alredy sayde but for that he was not of the true chosen which were chosen to be the children of God the gifts which he had receiued of him serued him not but only to more greiuous condemnation And therefore Iesus Christe did call hym Deuill bycause he had not those other more excellente giftes of God by whiche he moughte haue béene reformed to hys Image as the other Apostles were M. Thou touchest here thinges whyche doo well deserue to be noted to the ende that we please not our selues nor glory at all but in the grace that God doth shewe vs in Iesus Christe Peter For that cause Saincte Paule dothe also witnesse that if a man had the gifte of tongues in so great perfection that he could speake the very language of Angells and although he coulde by the gyfte of miracle remoue mountaines from one place to an other yet notwithstanding it should be nothing if he had not charitie the which doth testifie that there is true faith in the man that hath it but also maketh the man like vnto God insomuch as Sainct Iohn saith he is charitie it selfe The thirtenth Dialogue is of the Churche and of the ministerie of the same MATHEVV I Do now well vnderstande the difference that thou puttest betwene the giftes of the holye Ghost and how much some are more excellent and more necessarie and more to be desired than others And therefore if thou haue no more to saye at this presente neyther concerning his person ne yet his gyftes it séemeth to me that it shall be good that we speake nowe of the Churche whereof wée haue not yet spoken Peter It is one of the chiefe pointes whiche we haue yet to handle For the Churche is the same wherein God dothe open all the treasures of hys graces and gyftes whereof we haue euen nowe spoken and for whose sake he giueth them to whome he giueth them Mathevv Shewe me then what the Churche is Peter If wée take the name of the Churche in generall it signifieth assemblie or companie but when we speake of the Churche of God we take it not only for an assemblie and companie of all sortes of people but for a companie and assemblie of men the whiche GOD hathe chosen from others and hathe consecrated and sanctifyed them vnto himselfe in his Sonne Iesus Chryste by hys holye Spirite Mathevve Is that the cause why she is called holye Peter Yea and why she is also called the Communyon and Communaltye of Sainctes For there is none other communaltie or companie whiche is holye and is gouerned and guyded by the Hollye Ghoste but onelye thys whyche dothe acknowledge Iesus Chryste for hir onelye Heade King Sauioure and redéemer M. Which be those Sainctes whereof she is called the communion P. They be all the true faithfull whiche by faith are made members of Iesus Christe whiche is the holy one of holy ones the whiche hath giuen his holy spirite to his Churche to sanctifie it And therefore Saincte Paule dothe call all Christians Saincts Of the sanctifieng of the Church and of the members of the same M. BY what meane is it that God dothe sanctifie hys Churche to hymselfe by his holy Spirite P. By faith in hys Sonne Iesus Christ by the whiche she is vnited and ioyned to him as is the body to his head Wherefore she is also a partaker of the same very soule which is in the head the whiche giueth it corporall life For the head liueth not by one soule and the rest of the body by an other but do lyue bothe by one very soule forsomuche as the head and all the members of the body are but one body and not sundrye Mathevve Séeing it is so none maye then bée of that holy companie and assemblie but those which haue true faithe in Iesus Christe and whiche for that cause are called faithfull Peter It is easie to vnderstand M. Séeing that they haue faithe they are all then also made partakers of the giftes of the holie Ghost the whiche thou hast sayd are proper to the only electe of God and without the which men maye not be accompted for gods children and be heires of the heauenly glorie Pe. Thou mayst thereof iudge by that whiche we haue alreadie heretofore sayde to this purpose and by consequent thou mayste also iudge what is the estate of such which by their incredulitie are withoute and shut from that holie assemblie and companie Of the ministerie of the Churche and of the gifts necessarie to the same M ANd which is the meane to attaine to that faithe by whiche the faithful are receiued into that holy companie and be in the same incorporate into the body of Iesus Christ as mēbres of him P. It is by the ministerie of the word of God according to the saying of Saincte Paule that faith is giuen by the hearing of the same M. Is that the cause why the same Apostle sayde that God hath giuen to his Church some Apostles some Prophets others Euangelists and others pastors and Doctors for the establishment of the Saintes to the worke of administration for the buylding vp of the bodie of Chryst vnto the tyme that wée come all into the vnitie of the faith and knowledge of the Sonne of God to be a perfect man according to the measure of the full age of Chryste P. Beside that whyche thou sayest thou hast yet to note that S. Paule meaneth not by these words that Chryst giueth only men to his Churche whiche maye haue these offices but also that he giueth them gifts méete for them wherby they may wel exercise them M. Séeing it is so these guiftes of the holie Ghost which thou hast sayd that God did distribute not only to the faithful but also oftentymes to the vnfaithfull are necessarie for his Churche Peter There be of them that are so necessarie vnto it that the Churche can not be a Churche without them and therfore they be euer in hir But there be others without the
by the vertue of the same and therfore the holy Ghost is often signified in the holy Scriptures by water M. Are there yet any other proprieties P. Wée can not vnderstād our regeneration into a new creature to be made new men except wée vnderstād also the mortificatiō of our old nature which is our old Adam and our old man And therfore S. Paule sayth That by baptisme we ar dead and buried risen agayn with Iesus Chryst M. Is the water propre to signifie the deth burial of the old mā the resurrectiō and renewing of the newe P. The water alone doth not represēt vnto vs only these things but also the maner in the whiche it is administred in baptisme M. Howe may that be P. Thou séest that cōmonly it is poured vpon him that is baptised in token that our old Adam is drowned and dead in Iesus Christ as the olde Pharao and the Egyptians were drowned in the redde sea And therfore Saint Paul compareth baptisme to the passage thorowe the red sea M. And what signifieth thys that they doe but poure this water vpon him that is baptized P. The same signifieth vnto vs howe that of the death of the olde man the newe riseth as if our olde Adam after that he were drowned were risen againe a newe man and that all his olde filthines were drowned by the water of grace in the which he was plunged which is the bloode of Iesus Christe the true washer of regeneration M. I doe nowe vnderstand all this very well but is there any other proprietie to consider touching the water P. If we shuld make comparisō of all the other properties that it hath with the holy Ghost which it doth figure in Baptisme I could giue thée manie others from which I doe abstaine at this present seing that that which I haue said may suffice thée for the vnderstāding of the matter of Baptisme Of the admonition and figure that the faithfull haue of a Christian life in Baptisme M. HAst thou yet any thing to say touching this Sacrament P. I haue nowe to shewe thée what pattern and example wée haue there of a Christian life and of the dutie of a Christian and of true repentance which ought to be in him all the time of his life M. Expound all these to me P. Séeing that baptisme is to vs the Sacrament of regeneration of penaunce and of mortification wée are admonished by the same of the perpetuall penance that ought to be in vs of the mortification where by we ought to mortifie our earthly mēbers to the end that wée being dead to sinne may liue to God in iustice Of the Supper and why Iesus Christe did ordaine two signes for the same M. IT séemeth to mée nowe that I doe sufficiently vnderstand that matter of Baptisme and therfore lette vs procéede to the Supper P. The Supper is a Sacrament in the which Iesus Christ representeth to vs by the signe of breade and wine howe he hath giuen his bodie and his bloud to the deathe that hauyng reconciled vs vnto God he moughte bee our spirituall nouriture and mought cōfirme vs in the faith of the promisse whiche he had made vnto vs. M. For what cause hathe he represented his bodie and bloud by the bread and by the wyne P. To signifie vnto vs that euen as breade and wine are giuen to vs by God for our corporall nouriture euen so the bodye and bloud of Iesus Chryste is giuen vnto vs for spiritual foode M. And for what cause did Iesus Chryste ordeyne two signes in the supper but one in baptism Mought not the bread or the wine onely haue ben sufficient to represent this spirituall life without adding both of them P. As he hath ordeined the signe of the water whiche is very méete to represente that whiche in Baptisme he woulde represent vnto vs euen so he hath chosen for the Supper those signes that were most méet to signifie that which he wold haue signifyed in the same M. I doubte not at all of that P. And therfore albeit that by one onely signe as in Baptisme he coulde haue done all that whiche hath pleased him to do by two yet he woulde giue two for the better expressing of that whiche it pleased him to giue Of that whiche is speciall in the Supper wherein it differeth from baptisme and howe that all that is verye well represented in the bread and the wyne M. DEclare vnto mée then the properties whiche the breade and wine haue agréeable to the things the whiche they represent in the supper P. For the first thou must note and remember that whiche I haue alreadie touched that the supper hathe this proper vnto it that euen as baptisme is to vs a testimonie of our spiritual birth life which we obtayn by Iesus Christe euen so is the supper a sacrament and testimonie howe that God wil continue in vs that benefite whereof baptisme is to vs a Sacrament and will nourishe and entertayne vs in the same spirituall lyfe the which he signifieth vnto vs therin vnto the tyme that we haue the full enioying in heauen with Iesus Chryst M. I thinke than that to be the cause why Iesus Chryste would signifie those things to vs by the eating and drinking and by those things which are propre to nouriture P. It is euen so and for somuche as man can not lyue by meate only or drinke only except he haue them bothe togither no more is Iesus Chryst contented to ordeyne only the breade or only the wine for signes of the spirituall nouriture whiche wée haue in his Supper but would ordeine those two to giue vs to vnderstande that euen as he which hathe meate and drinke hath his whole nouriture euen so the faithefull haue in Iesus Chryst fully all that whiche is necessarie for the spiritual lyfe M. Is there yet none other reason why Iesus Chryst did ordeyn those two signes M. Yes for Iesus Christe hathe also by these two signes better expressed howe that he hath giuen his bodie and his lyfe to the deathe for vs thā if he had ordeined but one only in so much as he hath giuen one particuler signe to signifie his body and an other to signifye his bloude M. What further signification hath it P. To set the better before our eyes howe that he is in déede dead for vs in so much as his bloude was separated from his body and consequentlye his life and that he hath so loued vs that he hath not spared it for vs. How we must eate the body and fleshe of Iesus Christ and drinke his bloud in the Supper M. BVt séeing that the breade representeth vnto vs in the Supper the fleshe and bodie of Iesus Christ which is there gyuen vs for meate and that the wine representeth the bloude which is there gyuen vs for drink must wée there also eate the body of Iesus Christ and drinke hys bloude in the same
sorte as wée eate the breade and drinke the wine which represent them vnto vs P. If there were none other reason but that which may be gathered of that which I haue euē now spoken it mought suffice vs to discharge our heads of all such imaginations M. I doe not well vnderstand yet what thou meanest herein P. Seing that Iesus Christe hath ordeyned one seuerall signe to signifie his body and an other seuerall signe to signifie his bloud and that it hath pleased him so to discerne them the one from the other the better to represent to vs how his bloud was separated from his body for vs in such sorte as his life and soule was separated likewise it should also followe that his body must be eatē a parte as we there eate the breade and there drink the bloud a parte as we there drinke the wine M. If it were so we shoulde not haue in the Supper the liuing body of Christ but dead and other thā he is raigning in heauen where his bloud is not separated frō his body P. Thou sayest truth But thou hast yet to note that if the body and bloud of Iesus Christ were giuen vs to nourish and mainteyne vs in this corporall life as is bread and wine we shoulde then also eate the body and drinke the bloude of Christe corporally as we doe eate and drinke the corporall breade and wine But forsomuche as they are giuen vs for spirituall nouriture we must eate and drinke them spiritually M. What doest thou call to eate and drinke spiritually Peter To speake properly to eate and drinke is vnderstoode of the body and of the bodily meate and drinke but when we speake of spirituall thinges we take those wordes for a figure by the whiche we declare the spirituall thinges by the bodily thinges bycause of the similitude and agremente that they haue togither M. Why is that done P. To the ende that by the similitude and comparison of corporall thinges we moughte the better vnderstande the spirituall things Of the true spirituall eating and drinking M. DEclare this to me yet somewhat more plainely Peter Thou mayest well vnderstande that the soule and the Spirite do neyther eate nor drinke corporally and materially as dothe the bodye Mathevve I doe well vnderstande at the leaste that they haue neither mouth nor téeth nor stomackes nor bellies corporall whereby they may do the same P. And therefore it must néeds be that if the soule and the spirite do eate and drinke they eate and drinke in an other sorte than doth the body the whiche is proper and agreable to their nature M. There is reason in that whiche thou sayest P. And on the other side thou mayest well knowe also that the flesh of Iesus Christ is neyther eaten nor chawed neyther is swalowed downe into the stomacke and bellie neyther is it digested as is the corporall and materiall meate M. For what cause is it then that Iesus Christ hath vsed that manner of spéeche saying he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternall life P. It is to giue vs the better to vnderstande the communion and coniunction whiche we haue with him and how that his flesh and his bloud do the very same towarde the soule and also toward the body touching the spirituall life being receiued with a true and liuing faith as do the bread and wine towards the body touching the bodily life whē they are bodily eaten dronken The sixtenth Dialogue is of the transubstātiation cōsubstantiation and of the true presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper Of the error of transubstantiation and hovv the Supper cannot be a Sacramente if the bread and the vvine do not there remayne in their proper substance MATHEVV HOw is it that men do eate the flesh of Iesus Christ and do drinke his bloud as thou hast euen nowe saide It is to bée vnderstoode that the breade and the wine be transubstantiate and conuerted into them or else that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine P. For the firste there is no reason eyther to thinke or saye that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Iesus Christe M. For what cause P. Bycause that if the bread the wine did not remayne still in the supper bread and wine in their proper substance they shoulde not be the signes of the body of the bloud of Iesus Christe but if they were conuerted into the same they shoulde be the selfe same thing the which they oughte to signifie and represente vnto vs. M. What inconueniente should there be in that P. There shoulde be this inconuenient in it that the supper should be a Sacramente withoute signe and so shoulde it haue no Sacramentall signe without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments Of things vvithout the vvhich the sacraments cannot be sacramēts M. HOwe vnderstandest thou that P. Thou must note that a Sacramente cannot be a Sacramente excepte it haue at the leaste thrée things whiche are of the proper substance of all Sacramens M. Whiche are these thrée things P. The firste is the worde of God which is the foundation of all the Sacraments M. And the seconde P. The visible and materiall signes such as God hath ordeyned by that very word M. And the third P. The thinges signified aswell by that word as by the signes Of things vvhich are to be considered in the vvord of God in all Sacraments and in the signification of the same M. DEclare vnto me that whiche thou sayest by some similitude P. Séeing that we be vppon the matter of the Supper thou hast firste the worde of Iesus Christ in the which thou hast to note two pointes M. Whiche be they P. The first is the commandement which Iesus Christe there giueth to take and to eate the bread to drinke the wine which are giuen in the same M. Which is the secōd P. The promise whereby he declareth what it is that this bread and wine do signifie and for what cause he hath ordeyned and commaunded to receiue them and what frute we must looke for of them Math. Wherevpon takest thou thys promise Pe. Vppon that whiche is saide of the breade This same is my bodye whiche is broken for you and in like sorte vppon that whiche is spoken of the wyne Thys cuppe is my bloude or the newe Testamente in my bloude whiche is shedde for you doe this in remembraunce of mée Math. Muste wée vnderstande the lyke of all the other Sacramentes to witte that they haue commandemēt and promisse from God Peter There is no doubte thereof Ma. What is there more yet to cōsider cōcernyng the worde of GOD P. There is nothing more to be consydered concerning that same exteriour worde whyche is pronounced by the mouth of the mynisters Math. What resteth there yet more Peter That which is signified by the woorde the whiche doth also declare the signification
of the signes how God doth accomplishe by effect that which is signified as well by the worde as by the signes Of things to consider in the signes and in the signification of them in all Sacramentes M. WHat hast thou yet to saye of the sygnes and of their signification Peter Thou séest how that Iesus Chryst was not contented with the wordes only in the Supper but he added also therevnto the signes of the breade and of the wine as is that of the water in baptisme M. I demaund thée nothing of their signification For thou hast alredy declared it vnto me P. Thou hast only to note that these signes are not true signes without the things signified by them VVhether Hipocrites and Infidells do as vvell communicate in the Supper of the things signified by the signes as they do of the signes M. IF it be so that the signes be not vaine neyther in the supper nor yet in the other Sacraments without hauing with them the things which they signifie it thē followeth that whosoeuer receyueth the signes receyueth also the things signified by them and by that meane the infidells which are hypocrits do no lesse part take of the whole Sacramente than do the faithfull P. Thou concludest not well For when I say that the signes are not in the Sacraments without the thinges by them signified thou must vnderstād that on God his parte for he dothe not sette foorth his worde and sacraments to men without presenting vnto them also the things wherof he doth admonish them by the same Ma. How commeth it then to passe that all do not communicate alyke Pe. Bycause that all they to whome the gyftes of God are offered do not receyue them M. What is the cause that they do not receiue them P. Bicause they bring not fayth with them without the whiche no man can receiue them M. Thou wilt then say that they shut themselues from it by meane of their vnbeléefe and that it is not sufficient that the gifts of God bée presented vnto vs by his worde and hys sacraments if that forthwith they be not receiued and they can not be receiued but by meane of Faith which the infidels and hypocrites haue not P. Thou oughtest here to vnderstād that Iesus Christ may not be separated from his sprite séeing that it is so as none can receyue him but by his spirite euen so can hée not be receyued excepte he forthwith gyue hys holy spirite with him and doe make partakers of all these guiftes and graces all those whiche receiue him Mathevve Thou haste here yelded a greate reason Peter If it were not so there should be no difference betweene the faithfull and the infidell in the communion of GOD his Sacramentes and guyftes M. Yet thou confessest that notwythstandyng they may communicate of the outwarde signes as well as the other albeit they can not communicate of the thyngs signifyed by the signes Peter They maye there communicate well forsomuche as no mā may let them so long as they offer themselues as faithfull and that they be not discouered to the Churche for suche as they bée in sorte that they mought be vanquished of their vnworthinesse to seclude them wholly For if the things signified by the Sacramentes do not belong to them no more also doe belong the signes whiche signifie them Math. If they were then knowne of men to bée suche as they be before GOD they shoulde bée excommunicate to the ende they shoulde not approche Peter It is certayne And bycause that they are not knowne yf they were well aduysed they woulde of them selues forbeare for so much as they can not communicate of the very outward Sacramentes but to their condemnation bycause they are in no respect capable thereof wherfore they do but dishonour God and his Church prouoke daily more and more the wrath of God vpon them VVherfore are the breade and wyne called by the name of the body and bloud of Iesus Christ if they be not that body and bloud M. I Am satisfied touching that poynte but I haue yet some difficultie concerning that which thou hast said that the bread and the wine are not the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper and yet it séemeth that Iesus Christ saieth the contrarie cleane For he calleth them his body and his bloud by his owne wordes which thou hast euē now alledged P. But he meaneth not thereby that the breade wine are his body and bloude in proper substance in suche sort as their substance is cōuerted into the substance of his bodye and bloud M. For what cause then vseth he that maner of speache and hath not rather vsed some other more playne P. There are chiefely two reasons not only for that he vsed it but also why that maner of speache is more proper and more plaine in that matter than any other M. Which is the first of these reasons P. It is that when the holy scripture speaketh of Sacramentes it doth willingly name the signes with the names of the thinges whiche are signified by them And therfore Iesus Christ would accōmodate himselfe to that speache which the holy Ghost hath alwaye accustomed to vse in the Church bycause that it is familiar and easye to vnderstand to God his people with whō he hath to doe and vnto whom he doth addresse his doctrine M. And why is it that the holy Ghost speaketh rather this lāguage than otherwise P. Bycause it is more agréeable to this matter than any other M. For what cause P. For so muche as the Lorde will giue vs to vnderstand by suche phrases of speache that albeit that the signes of the Sacramentes be not the very same thinges which are signified by them yet notwithstanding they are not without them Of the manner in the vvhiche the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe are present in the supper and are communicate to the faithfull as vvell as the signes vvhich represent them M. IN what sorte then are they there if the signes remayn stil in their own substance P. Albeit they be not there by a naturall corporall materiall presence as the visible signes whiche are there giuen to vs that notwithstanding they be thereby a diuine spirituall vertue and maner wherby God by the vertue of his holy spirite doth make partaker of them all suche as by true and liuely faithe doe receiue his word and his sacraments by which he cōfirmeth the same in our harts Of the substantiall and naturall coniunction of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Christ with the bread and vvith the vvine of the Supper M. BVt if the breade and the wine doe not chaunge their substaunce and neyther be transubstantiated conuerted nor changed into the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste may not then the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste be well ioyned to them in their owne proper substāce nature P. Ther are among those which reiect the false doctrine of transubstantiation
by the whiche we haue bene sometyme taught that the very substāce of the bread and of the wine was chaunged into the very substance of the body of the bloud of Iesus Chryst which ar of the opinion that thou now settest forth M. And why do they rather folow that opinion than the other P. Bicause that they know well that opinion to be too grosse And therfore they haue recourse to that other maner of presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the Supper whereof thou haste now made mention M. And what inconueniente fyndest thou in that opinion Peter I fynde not muche lesse therein than in that of Transubstantiation Math. Thou canste not saye at the leaste but that they whiche followe it doe take from the Supper the signes of the breade and of the wyne for so much as they ioyne them wyth the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Chryste the whiche they signifie Peter No more are they also so greatlye different in other matters to them that mayntain transubstantiation And therfore may we lawfully call the opiniō of such men cōsubstantiation M. What vnderstandest thou by this word of Consubstantiation P. As they which haue forged the transubstātiation do vnderstand by the same a changing of substance into an other euen so by the name of consubstantiation a man may vnderstande the coniunction of diuers substances togither Of the agreement that is betwene this opinion that of transubstantiation M. DEclare vnto me then wherin they do agrée and wherin they doe differ Peter For the first if they doe vnderstande that the bodie and the bloud of Iesus Christe bée wyth the breade and the wine in their own nature and substance and by a naturall corporall and materiall maner as the bread and the wyne are there they agrée therin with the erroure of transubstantiation M. It séemeth to mée that they drawe well to one poynte sauing that they make no transubstantiation nor chaunge of the breade and of the wine into the body and bloude of Iesus Christ P. Thou séest it plainely by that whiche we haue alredy sayde thou mayest well vnderstand that such a naturall and corporall presence of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper should be cleane contrary to the nature of a spirituall nouriture the whiche is there set foorth vnto vs and likewise to the māner of eating of the body and the flesh and the drinking of the bloud of Iesus Christ according to the whiche they may be eatē and dronkē for spirituall meate drinke The seauententh Dialogue is of the communication of Iesus Christ as wel in Baptisme as in the Supper VVherevnto baptisme and the signification thereof may serue to giue vs to vnderstand in vvhat sorte it behoueth vs to be nourished by the body and bloud of Iesus Christ MATHEVV I Haue well vnderstoode that thou hast sayde that we must be nourished with spirituall meate and nouriture into eternall life and that by a spirituall maner agreable to the spirituall birth and life into the which we are regenerate by baptisme and according to the testimonie of God which is set foorth vnto vs in the same concerning our regeneration P. That whiche thou sayest maye serue vs very much to the vnderstanding of the matter which we now hādle For thou doest wel know that we are not regenerate in baptisme by any corporall or material séede of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christe nor by any naturall manner as we are naturally begotten by our fathers mothers M. I know well also that we may not enter againe into our mothers womb as Nicodeme said to Iesus christ to be borne a new once more as we are already once borne P. And therefore I doubt not but that thou doest well vnderstande that that regeneration and newe birth is wrought by a séede incorruptible spiritual and diuine by the which we are begotten into the Churche by the vertue of the holy Ghoste by whome we are regenerate into a new life In vvhat sorte vve do communicate of the body bloud of Iesus christ in baptism M. IT is not also said that Iesus Christ doth giue his body and his bloud in Baptisme as he doth in the supper like wise the water is not called therein the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe as Iesus Christ doth in the Supper call the bread the wine by the name of them P. Albeit the the water be not there called in baptisme by that name dost thou thinke for all that that the body and bloude of Iesus Christ be not there distributed and communicated vnto thée in the same as well as in the Supper M. I do not so vnderstand it P. Thou wilte then ordeyne a Baptisme withoute Iesus Christe M. Wherfore P. Bycause thou cāst not haue Iesus Christ except thou haue him wholy and very God and very man and that thou haue true communion with his body with his bloud not only in the supper but also in baptisme M. Shewe me the cause thereof P. It is bycause that the Baptisme doth no lesse sende vs to the deathe and passion and to the body and bloud of Iesus Christe than doth the Supper for somuch as that is proper to al sacramēts VVhat difference there is betvvene the baptisme and the Supper touching the communion of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ M. IT séemeth to me that thou speakest against that whiche thou hast sayde heretofore touching the difference which thou hast put betwene baptisme and the Supper for it séemeth that thou speakest now as though baptisme the supper were one very Sacramente and that there were no difference betwene them P. Thou makest an euill conclusion For albeit that we doe as well participate of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in baptisme as in the Supper yet notwithstanding there is difference in the participation and in the manner thereof in respect of the benefites of Iesus Christ whiche are signified and communicated vnto vs as wel in the one of the sacramēts as in the other M. I haue not thē wel vnderstoode thée yet heretofore and therfore declare vnto me more easily that whiche thou now speakest of P. Although the body of Iesus Christe be not giuen vnto vs in baptisme as for spirituall foode as it is in the Supper that notwithstanding it is there giuen vnto vs in very déede as a garment of innocencie of Iustice and of holynesse to couer all our sinnes before god And therefore S. Paule saith that all those which are baptised haue put on them Iesus Christ M. And of the bloud what sayest thou P. Albeit that it be not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme as for drinke as it is in the supper yet notwithstāding it is there giuen vnto vs for a spirituall washing of our soules and consciences whereby Iesus Christe dothe purifie and clense his Church in this lauer of
to the children or people of Israel as though he gaue his lawe but to them onely the whiche notwithstanding euen as it hath bene sayde heretofore doth no lesse belōg to vs than to that people Wherfore I would gladly vnderstād the meaning of it and the causes and reasons for the which God did so set it forth wherein it belongeth to vs. D. You doe know well that when Kinges Princes make any Lawes and doe cause any statutes or ordinaunces to be published in their name they doe accustome to put some preface to it cōtayning their name and the titles wherby they declare what their Maiestie Lordship power is Seing then that God whiche is the chiefe King Prince of al creatures would publishe his Lawe was it not then méete that he shoulde declare that he was the Lawmaker and what was his maiestie power And therefore did he say I am the lorde thy God whiche haue brought thee out of the lande of Egipte from the house of bondage Then is it requisite before all other things to knowe in this lawe who is the true God and by what meanes he may be knowen and discerned and seperated from false Goddes that this knowledge goe before all the cōmandements folowing For who shall call vpon God who shall feare him who shall loue him who shal put his truste in him if that first he do not know him and not in such sorte as the heathen doe who although they had a certayne opinion that there was a God vpon whome it behoued them to call to feare to loue and to honour yet for all that they did not know who he was nor where to finde him And for so much as wée can not sée him nor discerne him with eyes nor with any other corporal sense yet notwithstanding wée must beholde him embrase him and speake vnto him from the harte and frō the spirite Of the name Eternal vvhich is Jehoua in Hebrevve giuen to God. T. WHerefore dothe he first call him selfe the Eternal D. He dothe declare in the Hebrewe tongue in the which Moyses hath writtē these things by the woorde of Iehoua the which we do so translate what is his beyng his nature that he is the Creatour of al creatures the first the last without beginning and without end and hath his being of none other but of him self of him all things haue their beyng are come from him and doe returne into him It is he by whom we liue moue are Thē may he lawfully say I am the whiche none els may iustly say Wherefore seyng that he is our Creatour so by consequent our guide gouerner that we haue of him our soule body and goodes is it not méete that we doe acknowledge him to be our King Prince Lord render to him the homage of soule of body goodes of all things els that we haue receyued of him to yelde vnto him perfect obedience For this cause the holy Scripture putteth vs in minde oftētimes of these things giueth to God the title of maker of heauen and earth Wherfore it must néedes be graūted that none other be our God but onely he vnto whom this name and title belongeth which is that Eternall essence that can doe all things and is the beginning the conseruation the end of all things In vvhat sorte God is generally called the God of all men and chiefely the God of his chosen people T. WHerefore doth he also say beside that Thy God D. Bicause that this first benefite is cōmon to all men to al creatures according to their nature in as much as he is creatour of thē all he addeth vnto it also this title to make him more amiable and fauourable vnto vs to the end that by that meane he may make his doctrine more acceptable vnto vs that he may make vs the more willing to receyue it as the doctrine of our father who by the same procureth nothing but onely our cōmoditie and saluation And therefore he doth not onely say God but thy God which is a maner of speach that according to the phrase of the holy Scripture carieth with it fauour grace For first the name of God the which Moyses here doth vse doth signifie in Hebrewe force forces to declare vnto vs that he hath the power to aide and helpe vs and that he is not onely God for him selfe to witte that he will kéepe in him selfe the good things that in him are and not to bestow distribute them but that his very office is to bestow thē vpō men to shewe him self gratious fauourable towardes thē When he doth the contrary being prouoked thereunto by their frowardnesse wickednesse he doth by his prophets call that worke a straūge worke Wherefore when he calleth him selfe the God of any people he declareth therby that he is not only their God as he is generally the God of all creatures as Creatour of them but that he is their God not seuere rigorous as a iudge toward euill doers but curteous louing fauourable merciful as a good father to his childrē When then he sayeth Thy God he doth then put thē in minde of that which he spake before that he had chosen this people as his own enheritance as a precious Iewell among all the rest And therefore it is not without cause sayd by the Prophete he hath done so to none other nation And therefore he sayth by Esaie And now saith the Lord thus which hath created thée Iacob who hath fashioned thée Israell feare not for I haue bought thée I haue named thy name Thou art mine When thou shalt passe by water I will be with thee the floudes shall not swallow thée vp When thou shalt passe through the fire thou shalt not be burnt For I am the Lord thy God the holy one of Israell thy Sauiour c. T. There is a goodly declaration of that which thou hast now spoken and a very apparant testimonie D. It is euen so For thou séest that after that he calleth him self the God the maker fashioner of Israell the Eternall he addeth vnto it immediatly Thy Sauiour whiche haue redéemed thée For vvhat cause God doth make expresse mention in the preface of his Lavve of the deliuerance of Israell out of Egipte T. ANd why doeth he adde yet which haue brought thée out of the lande of Egipt D. To put thē in minde of the great benefite the which not long before they had receiued of him and whereby he had plainely declared vnto them that he was their God and that he esteemed them for his people in an other sorte than he did the Egiptians wherefore they had good occasion to thinke that so good a God and so louing a father would not set forth vnto thē any doctrine but such as should be greatly for
blyndenesse that synne hathe engendred in the vnderstandyng of man which is the cause that he cannot so well discerne the good from the euill nor iudge of the one and the other as he should haue done if he had continued in the state of innocencie and grace in the whiche he was created beside that there is this other greate mischiefe that man doth willingly supporte that wherin hee would himselfe be supported and that he neuer hath so great care for that which concerneth the honoure of God as for that whiche concerneth his owne bodie It is the cause why men doe rather punishe yea and that more gréeuousely those faultes whiche touche their honor or dishonor or their profit or hindrance than they doe those whiche make warres directly against the honour and maiestie of God but it is not so with God for he is not contented with the only work that appeareth outwardly but he requireth the hearte and beholdeth the fountayne from whence the woork springeth which can not please him howe faire a shewe so euer it haue but only so farre foorth as it procéedeth from the heart and that the heart doe please him the whiche in déede can in no wise please him but so farforth as he doth drawe néere to his nature and that he is reformed and made new lyke to his image and regenerate by his holy spirite For there is no worke good nor pleasant to God but that whiche procéedeth from him and that he himself doth for euen as there is none good but onely he so is ther no good thing but that which procedeth frō him alone therfore the work which procéedeth from vs can not please him but so farre as hée worketh in vs by his holy spirite and that our spirite is gouerned by his For he whiche is a spirite is then serued by his like In vvhat sorte the vvordes of the lavve of God ought to be vnderstode and hovve that God dothe not onely beholde the outvvarde vvorkes but the origiginal of them also vvhat be the things that God doth allovv or cōdemne in man. T. SO farre foorth as I may vnderstand by thy woordes that lawe doth well deserue to be otherwyse weyed and considered of than it is D. It is euen so For when God dothe require of vs a thing that séemeth to belong to the outewarde woorke wée oughte to vnderstande the whole by a parte and the cause by the effecte and the roote and the whole herbe by the fruict and the woorkeman by the woorke and all the circumstaunces and dependances of the one and the other And when he forbiddeth a thyng we muste also knowe that he commaundeth his contrarie and likewise when he commaundeth hée forbiddeth the contrarie of that whiche he commaundeth For he beholdeth man thorowly both endlong and ouerthwarte and dothe sounde the hearte and all the thoughts and affections of him and alloweth nothyng in hym but that whiche he fyndeth to bée his and hathe himselfe commaunded and disalloweth nothing but that which man hath receiued of others than of him that which he hath forbidden him Wherfore he doth not only condemne that worke whiche séemeth outwardly to bée euill but also the spring from whence the same procedeth doth not onely condemne it when his frute is come to light but he doth alwais condemn it albeit that it doe continually lie hidde in secrete in the darke bottomlesse pittes of ignoraunce of the hearte of man vnsearcheable to man but knowne and open to god Therfore Dauid sayeth thou haste proued and knowne mée thou haste knowne mée sitting and standing going and commyng within and without For howe may it be that the workeman which made man shoulde not know him whiche did know him before he was begotten and made Shall not the workman know his worke T. Who shoulde then know him if he should not Of the consideration of those things which in dede displease God in man and first of all in his vvorke and in vvhat sort it ought to be cōsidered as commaunded or forbidden by God. D. SEeing then that hée whyche is the workeman and hath framed made the substance it selfe wherof he is fashioned and that he him selfe is the giuer of the fashion it is not to bee doubted but that hée doothe verye well knowe all that euer is in hym and that whyche hée hath of his owne put into hym and what man hath of others to destroy his worke Wée must therfore note here that there are in vs foure things that can not please God and euery of them dothe in his behalfe deserue death and eternal damnation Nowe if any one of them being taken aparte if it were possible to separate them the one from the other be so abhominable of his owne nature and worthye of so gréeuous punyshemente what may it then be when they are all ioyned togither T. There must néedes be muche filthinesse but which be these things D. First there is concupiscence for the seconde the affection begotten of him for the third the consent of the wil to this affection for the fourthe the execution of the same by déede But I will begin my declaration by this last which is to say by the work that apeareth outwardly to the ende that by the same wée maye haue the better vnderstanding of the other thynges that doe goe before which are more hidden and more secret In this poynt I will begin by the moste apparaunt and open frute whereby wée easily iudge of the nature of all trées For in setting foorthe firste the worke the workeman shal not only be knowne therby but also the forge and shoppe wherein that worke hath bin wrought As concerning the worke we oughte to consider it first two wais The one as commaunded of God the other as forbidden by hym That which is commaunded by God can neuer be euill being vnderstoode in that sense and meaning that he hath cōmaunded it and being applyed to that end that it oughte to bée On the other side that which he hath forbidden being weyed in the same sorte may neuer in any wise be good By what rule the vvorks of men ought to be examined and hovv daungerous a thing it is to follovve the iudgemente of mans reason T. WE ought then to be well aduised and to take good héede how we do establish iudgement vppon mans reason and vpon the opinions of men in such matters D. It is very true For it is often times séene that men iudge that good which is euil and do disalowe that which God aloweth and alowe that whiche he disaloweth for the causes before mentioned For in the iudgement of god the sentence shall not be giuen according to the iudgement of mans reason and of the opinions of men but according to the pronuntiation whiche God hath alredy pronounced by his worde and by his lawe which shall be the weights the ballaunce and the rule wherein and whereby al the thoughts words and