31a Appendix 1

OBSERVATIONS OF THE SAME ZANCHIUS UPON HIS OWN CONFESSION Not few nor small were the occasions whereby I was induced rather to adjoin these mine observations to my confession itself, than to alter anything therein contained. Many there be to whom it is not unknown, upon what occasion, at what time, at whose commandment, in whose names, and for what purposes, I even against my will and constrained thereunto, wrote this sum of Christian doctrine. For although there is no man but seeth, that this confession, as was never looked for, is published in their name for whose sakes it was written; yet how this came to pass, and for what causes it was done, all men do not know; many wondering at the deed, yet ignorant of the true causes. Hereupon how diverse suspicions many men might gather, how diverse judgments might be given of me, and of the confession itself, I say not of private men but even of the whole congregations, yea how diverse and sinister speeches might be thrown out among the vulgar sort, who is it that perceiveth not? I was therefore enforced (before I die) to stop such sinister and false suspicions, judgments and speeches concerning my doctrine. That, I thought, could be done by no better means than to publish a part by itself--both the confession, even as I write it, and a part likewise my observations upon the same, wherein what so is dark is expounded, and what so is doubtful is confirmed; and so to leave the judgment of the whole matter together to all the true catholic church. I thought moreover it would be no little help to take away all suspicions of men, if there be any conceived; if such judgments as learned men have given of my confessions, I make known to all the godly readers out of their own letters, especially since by them it may well appear unto every man what were the causes why the confession came not forth in the same manner, as was appointed.

One great learned man write [wrote] unto me concerning that matter, in these words:

Whereas you write [wrote] unto me concerning your confession, it hath been read over both by me, by N., and others with great pleasure; which is written very learnedly and with an exquisite method. And if you take out that same which you have added in the end concerning archbishops and the hierarchy, it pleaseth me passing well. But when as together with the brethren N.N. which are with us we conferred about the way and means of an agreement among the churches of our confession to be begonne [begun], they all with one consent thought only this to be the safest and speediest way: That the confessions of faith received and set forth by every of the churches in each province should be composed and framed into one harmony; that they might be alike (touching the substance of faith) all of them; and each church embrace them as their own. This their advice, since they commended to us by many reasons; we have written unto you thereupon, and to the Reverend brethren N.N. and other congregations round about us, who have all of them liked very well thereof.

Thus far out of the letters of that learned man. Almost to the same purpose could we bring many things besides out of letters written from other[s] about the same matter, but (for that it greatly needeth not) we will for brevity’s sake omit the same. Therefore to our matter. An observation upon the whole confession. When we use the word of condemning, we mean nothing else than, that the heresies which have been condemned by the catholic church, the same also we condemn. And which it allowed not, the same also we allow not. And this we desire to leave witnessed to all posterity.

Upon the first chapter, aphorism four.

Whereas we have given the first place next after the canonical books to the Apocrypha in the volume of the Bible, we did it, induced by the authority of the Greek and Latin churches, who did always give that honor unto them, that they should be joined with the canonical books. See the places in Hierome, Cyprian, and the council of Laodicea, cited in the confession, the first chapter and fifth aphorism. Moreover, we spake of books, not of any manner of writings. For otherwise we prefer the general creeds, before the Apocrypha.

Upon the second chapter, of God, the first aphorism.

Though the property of existences be to exist in the essence, yet speaking of God, we would rather use another manner of speech, and that more usual for certain causes, as namely to teach against the reproaches and scoffs of the Arrians of our time, that the divine essence is not found, but only in the persons; and therefore that we do not make an essence apart by itself subsisting from the persons; wherein yet three persons should subsist, as though the catholic church should forge four existences in God. The third aphorism. Of this real communication of the essential proprieties of God we have also written a several treatise in the book which shall be entitled, Of the Incarnation of the Son of God, upon the words to Php 2:1-30, "Who, being in the form of God", etc. Unto which we refer the reader, who so he be that desireth a further explanation of this doctrine. Surely the Lord Jesus when He said, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," He plainly excepted His created mind from that essential knowledge wherewith the Father knoweth, that is, (as the schoolmen speak,) comprehendeth the Son, and the Son the Father; teaching that what knowledge soever creatures have in themselves concerning God, the same is some way revealed unto them. And therefore such knowledge is not the essential and infinite knowledge which is in God, but a created, and a finite or determinate knowledge.

Upon the fifth chapter of the world’s creation, etc., the second aphorism. That the heaven of the blessed, wherein the Lord Jesus is now in His body, doth differ from the earth and from the other heavens, and is above all those visible heavens; besides that which hath been already said, these few proofs do also confirm: Ephesians 4:1-32, Christ is said to have ascended above all heavens; in another place, He is read to have ascended into heaven, and to be in heaven, and to sit at the right hand of the Father. Therefore this heaven is above the other heavens, and differeth from them. So in Colossians 3:1-25 the apostle distinguisheth the place where Christ is at the right hand of the Father, from the earth, and calleth it upward, saying, "Seek those things that are above...set your affections on things above," where Christ is; and in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-18, he saith, "The Lord...shall descend from heaven," namely into these lower parts; and all the godly shall be caught up into the air to meet Christ in the clouds. That heaven therefore is aloft, not on the earth, not in the air, much less in every place. For He shall come down in the visible shape of his body from the high heaven, into these parts to judge the quick and the dead. Of this heaven we have spoken particularly in our books, Deo-peribus Dei, of the works which He created in the six days. We therefore disallow of that doctrine which is contrary, which distinguisheth not the heaven from the earth, nor this heaven from other heavens, but would prove it to be everywhere.

Upon the seventh chapter, the eleventh aphorism.

Among other things which Julianus the Pelagian objected to Augustine, proving and defending original sin, these were some: That either he made God an author of sin, or the devil a creator of man; and that, because the Pelagians thought that Augustine made original sin the very substance of man. All which objections he confuted in his 7th [seventh] Tome, against Pelag. the 5th [fifth] book and first chapter in these words: "Neither do we ascribe injustice to God, but rather equity, in that, even infants are punished, not unjustly with such and so many evils, as we see; neither do we attribute the making of man, but the corrupting and depraving of man’s original to the devil; neither do we grant a substance in the sin, but an act of it in the first man; and a contagion thereof in all his posterity. Neither do we grant unto infants a conscience without knowledge, in whom is neither conscience nor knowledge; but he knew what he did, in whom all have sinned, and from whom all have drawn corruption," etc.

Upon the ninth chapter, the fifth aphorism.

How they can wind themselves out of this error, which deny that the fathers did eat the true flesh of Christ, we see not; as though, because He was not as yet indeed existing in nature, therefore He was not existing in the assured promise of Christ, and consequently could not be apprehended and eaten by faith. For this proposition is general and to all men, and at all times belongeth. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man...ye have no life in you." For life is not imparted but only to those which by faith, as members to the Head, are joined to the flesh of Christ, and by the flesh to the Spirit, or to the Word, which is life.

Upon the tenth chapter, the third aphorism. For God would show, etc. That which I said of the first, second, third, and fourth estate--had been more clear if I had told what man was before he sinned; what after he had sinned; what under grace; and what he shall be in his glory.

Upon the eleventh chapter of Christ the Redeemer, aphorism six. That the person of Christ, speaking properly, is compounded of the divine nature, which is immeasurable, and most pure; and of the human, which in respect of the divine, is less than a prick to an infinite mass, as of two parts truly and properly so called, we together with the schoolmen do justly deny. For what proportion can there be between that which is finite and the infinite, between the creature and creator. But by the way confessing with the ancient fathers, that it may be called compounded, in that sense, as the Scripture saith, "The word was made flesh," and that He which was in the shape of God was now made in the likeness of man. And this is nothing else but that this eternal Hypostasis doth now subsist in two natures, so as Christ is no less true man than true God. Hereunto tendeth it, which before we said, of the similitude of the soul and body (for of these two, as true and essential parts, consisteth the person of man) how the same doth not agree fitly every way. And yet we allow of the same similitude, in that sense which Athanasius and other fathers used it, to show the true and substantial union of the two diverse natures, although it do not fully agree in all things to this great mystery, as Justinus, in his exposition of faith and other fathers have freely confessed. The similitude of the garment is much used of the ancient fathers, especially of Athanasius and it is agreeable to the Scriptures. For the flesh of Christ, wherewith His deity was covered, the apostle calleth a veil (Hebrews 10:20). And most excellently, by this similitude of the garment, that opinion of the real imparting and communication of the divine proprieties with the human nature is quite overthrown, which some do much labor to prove by the similitudes of a fire-hot iron, and of a body with life in it, which they can never do. The tenth aphorism. The similitude of the sun doth not altogether so fitly agree as that similitude of the glory, which our bodies shall receive, because that glory shall clean take away all the shame and reproach of our flesh. But the sun doth only dim the light of a candle, and not clean put it out. Yet notwithstanding this similitude of the sun doth plainly show what we mean; namely that by the real communication of the sun with the air, the light of the candle is made altogether unprofitable, and so as it were put out, and to be no light at all, yet that the essential proprieties of the flesh are never quite taken away, or so weakened by the personal union, that they serve to no use, it is manifest. And yet this indeed could by no means by avoided, if the human nature should really participate with the divine omnipotency, so that it could do whatsoever God could do. For the Word, the Son of God, never took unto Him, held or holdeth anything in vain. Therefore by this similitude of the sun is strongly confirmed that which is proved by the similitude of the glory which shall take away all ignominy from our bodies. The eleventh aphorism, that same whole Christ, etc.

Here in the first part to the Name of Christ, is added the Son of man; in the other part the Son of God. God, that we might show how that divine attributes are spoken of Christ the man; and human, of Christ God, seeing the very person of Christ is meant in either part. For the same Christ, one and the same person, is whole God and whole man, though not wholly (as Damascene speaketh) for in two distinct natures He subsisteth one and the very same. This doth Damascene thus declare, lib. 3, cap. 7, "The whole Christ is perfect God; but the whole subsistance of Christ, is not only God; for it is not only God but also man. And the whole Christ is perfect man, but the whole subsistance of Christ is not only man; for it is not only man but also God. For the whole subsistance doth represent the nature, but whole Christ, the person." But whereas we spake of His actions, done by Him either according to His human nature or according to His divine, that yet one and the same and whole Christ performeth the same, it dependeth upon this that the actions were (as the schools say) of supposite natures. But the diversity of the actions proceedeth from the diverseness of the natures or forms by which they were done. Since therefore there is in Christ two natures, and but one person, thereon it comes that there is but only "one worker, namely whole Christ, two natures that can work; and two kinds of actions." Now these actions are called the actions of God and man, not so much for that they proceed from one agent which is , God and man, as that not only the Deity but also the humanity meet together for this work of our salvation, each joining His actions with the others’ actions. And this is the first and principal force of this hypostatical, or personal union; namely that by it, the two natures and their properties and actions are so united in one and the same person, that He who by the form of God, wherein He hath from the beginning subsisted, is God, and by the form of a servant, wherein He now subsisteth, is man; and the same being whole God is whole man, and being whole man is whole God. And consequently is wholly omnipotent and everywhere present, and whole inomnipotent, and existing in a certain place; and the same whole died, and whole by dying destroyed death. And thus it finally followeth that to the obtaining, communicating, and applying of our salvation not only His divine nature worketh, but also the human worketh with it. The second force followeth of the first; namely that the human nature was made the Deity’s instrument united personally thereunto, and therefore a most forcible and effectual instrument to bestow all benefits upon us. The third, that by this union, this mass or lump of human nature, is lift[ed] up to such dignity that we neither can nor ought to bend our actions of adoration, faith, prayer, and love to the only Deity of Christ, as is declared in the confession. For we are commanded to worship the Son Himself, that is the person, (Hebrews 1:1-14), and to believe in Him. The fourth force is, that because this human nature is personally united to the divine, therefore the gifts of God conferred upon the same are without measure, as is declared in the aphorism following. The twelfth aphorism.

Although when I wrote this confession I thought to myself that I had handled all things which belong unto this article, of the person of Christ, yet I thought for the better explaining thereof to join this also which followeth, to that which I said before.

1. There is and ever was one only person of Christ. For there is but one only begotten Son of God and one and the same Christ.

2. This person, being from all eternity by the natural begetting of the Father, is proper unto the Word; but in time was made common to the human nature taken to it, by virtue of the personal union. For in the Word, the essence which it hath common, yea the very same with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is to be distinguished from the proper manner of subsisting, whereby it comes to pass that it is a certain hypostasis or person, distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost; and therefore is, and is called the hypostasis or person proper to the Son or to the Word. But this eternal hypostasis, proper by nature unto the Word, is by this union made common as we said, with the divine nature and the human taken unto it; namely that the Word doth no less subsist really in this human form than it doth in that divine form, and in that respect is no less true and perfect man than true and perfect God; yet the natures, properties and actions remaining safe and distinct.

3. Therefore into the unity of that immeasurable, most pure, and most perfect person, was taken the human nature, that is, that lump consisting of the reasonable soul and flesh of man, finite, compounded, and needing many things. But how? Not so as that (for example) it contained that infinite person within the bounds or limits of its own finite or determinate substance; or that it spread itself, as it were, stretched out into the largeness of it. And that which we say of this property, the same is to be thought and believed of all the rest, because they all remain unchangeable and unmixed. How then was the human nature taken? Surely, it was so taken into unity of the same person; that yet it is not made the very person, but rather existeth in the person, is born and sustained of the person, and ever dependeth wholly upon the same. For this union of the natures according to the hypostasis, or uniting of the hypostasis, is made without alteration, confusion or division.

4. Whereby it also followeth that the nature taken, (to speak properly) is not a part of this person, as is aforesaid. For like as of the union of the two natures there is not framed a third nature, so neither by taking the human nature into unity of the divine person is there framed, as it were, a new person, which should be the proper person of Christ, and should differ from the person of the Word, which is the Word itself. For it is altogether the very same, nor doth it differ from itself, except herein, that the same which subsisted only in the form of God, and was only God, now subsisteth also in the form of a servant and is also man. And before was as a king naked, but is now clothed with our flesh as with a purple garment; so that for this cause, the fathers, not amiss, called the same (in some sort) a compounded person. But mark also this difference besides the rest, that the garment pertaineth not to the essence of a king, but the human nature in Christ is in such sort, that without it, cannot be defined what Christ is.

5. Which is the cause why the human nature thus taken is to be reputed and acknowledged as it were a part of the person of Christ, namely because it is so taken into unity of His person; that as the Word with this human flesh, is said to be, and is man, so also this flesh in the Word, and with the Word God, is said to be, and is God, as Athanasius, Gregorie, Nazianzene, Damascene, and other fathers have proved out of the Scriptures. For that flesh is God, not by nature but by hypostasie [hypostasis], in which sense the same flesh is omnipotent, and present in all places; whereupon it comes also that what honor belongeth to the Word of itself, the same is also to be given to the flesh in the Word and for the Word, because of them both there is but one and the same hypostasie [hypostasis].

6. Add this moreover, for better explications sake, that the Word, although wheresoever it be, (and it is in all places) there also the same is not only God, but also man, and that because it hath in all places the human nature united thereunto by hypostasie; yet, wheresoever it is itself, it doth not make itself an hypostasis or personal to the human nature, but only there where the same nature existeth; namely so, as that nature is sustained, born, and wrought or moved by it. For how should the same be said to be sustained where it doth not exist? The feet are sustained by the soul, not wheresoever the soul is, be it in the head, but only where they themselves are existing. When the flesh was in the virgin’s womb, the Word being then personally united unto it did not then sustain the same out of the womb of Mary; but only it was hypostasis unto it in the womb which sustained the same there, and not in any other place, which is also to be said of all the time of Christ’s life when He lived in divers places. Likewise after His death it was hypostasis unto His body when it was dead and buried, and sustained the same in itself. But where? Surely not in heaven where the body was not, but only in the grave, even as also it was hypostasis to His soul separated from His body, not in the grave but out of the grave, and sustained the same in itself. And now it sustaineth both the soul and body together in heaven, not in earth, much less everywhere.

7. Neither doth it follow upon this doctrine that the personal union is dissolved; neither doth it come to pass that the whole person is not hypostasis to the flesh, but only in part. The reason is because this person of the Word, as it is infinite, so also is it most simple and pure and therefore both is wholly hypostasis to the flesh, wheresoever the flesh existeth; and is also wholly hypostasis in other places where the flesh existeth not, being itself existing in the form of God. Indeed the soul (as is aforesaid) is wholly hypostasis to the head, giving life to it and sustaining it. But where? Not in every part of the body, but only in that where the head itself is. And out of the head is also wholly hypostasis to the feet, sustaining them too; not where the head is, but where the feet themselves are. Is then the union which the soul hath with the head dissolved because out of the head it is wholly also in the feet?

8. Finally, that all things which have been spoken of this personal union may more plainly be declared, I add these also: The soul is hypostasis to the eyes. To what eyes? Such as they are; namely, instruments used for sight, not for hearing. On the other side, to the ears for hearing, not for seeing. So the Word was hypostasis to the human nature, not to destroy death, which was a property of the Word, but to suffer death which was a property of the flesh.

Lastly, it is hypostasis to the flesh not to this end, that the flesh should be it and such like which, and of which sort the Word is. But it should be it, and such like which, and of which sort it is itself, either by nature or by grace, really put into it which they call infused or habitual grace. For the grace of this union is this, that it is taken into this unity of person. This same doctrine of ours is confirmed by those things which are delivered both by the Scriptures and the fathers concerning the office of the Mediator, that is concerning the end of His incarnation.

Many ends of this incarnation are noted of the fathers in the Scriptures, and particularly of Anselm, in his book entitled Cur Deus Homo (Why God is Man). But the principal and immediate end was not simply that the Word, God, might save us (for He could have performed it by His omnipotence and by His only commandment without taking flesh), but that He might by such means save us from death, namely, by death of His own person; and by His own resurrection might raise us to life, according to that of the apostle to the Hebrews, chapter 2, verse 14, "That through death He might destroy him" etc. And in 2 Timothy 1:10, "Who hath abolished death, and hath brought life" etc. To which the old church consented, saying, "Who by dying destroyed death, and by rising again repaired life." Leo the First [Leo I] declared this end saying, "The Son of God took our flesh, that by one nature He might die, by the other He might not die." Therefore He took upon Him flesh to this principal end, that for the performing of our salvation He might do such things by that flesh which of Himself, being in the form of God, He could not perform, as to suffer and to die. For to kill death, simply He could by Himself have done it. But to kill it by death He could not in Himself do it without taking mortal flesh into unity of His person. Wherefore the Word did not take flesh, that by the flesh it might do such actions as were the proper actions of itself, but that it might work our salvation by such means, namely by the own proper actions joined with the actions of our flesh.

Upon the 12th chapter; the 8th aphorism.

Concerning this true and essential union of us and of our own flesh with the flesh of Christ, there is a notable place in Cyrill, upon John. lib. 10. cap. 13. Col. 500.

We deny not but we are spiritually joined to Christ by true faith and sincere love, but that we have no manner of conjunction with Him according to the flesh, that we flatly deny, and affirm it to be clean against the Scriptures. For whoever doubted but Christ is so the Vine, and we the branches, that from Him we draw life unto our selves? Hear what Paul saith: We are all one body with Christ; for though we are many, yet in Him we are one; for we all are partakers of one bread. Doth he perchance think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown unto us? Which being in us doth it not also make Christ to dwell in us corporally, by communication of the flesh of Christ? For why are the members of the faithful the members of Christ? Know ye not, saith he, that your members are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Our Savior also said, "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him." Whereby we may consider that Christ is in us not only by dwelling in us, which is perceived by love, but also by a natural participation. For even as, if one take wax melted by the fire and mingle it with other wax likewise melted, so as of them both he make but one thing--so by this communication of the body and blood of Christ, He is in us and we in Him. For otherwise this corruptible nature of the body could never be brought to incorruption and to life, unless the body of natural life were joined unto it. Believest thou not me telling thee this? Believe (I pray thee) Christ Himself: "Verily, verily, (saith He) I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Thou hearest Him plainly crying out that we shall have no life unless we drink His blood and eat His flesh--in you (saith He) yourselves, that is, in your body. By life may well be understood the flesh of life, for that doth raise us up at the last day. And so need I not think it an uncurrant speech to say, the flesh of life being made flesh of the only begotten Son is brought to the virtue of life, and therefore cannot be overcome of death; and therefore being made in us, puts death from us. For God’s only begotten Son is never absent from it, whereupon because He is one with His flesh, "I (saith He) will raise him up." Why then should it be denied that we are called branches, according to the flesh? May it not fitly be said that the vine is His humanity, and we the branches, for the identity or likeness of our nature? For the vine and the branches are of the same nature; so both spiritually and corporally are we the branches, and Christ the Vine. Thus far Cyrill. In this whole text Cyrill’s purpose was to show that Christ, not only according to His deity, as His adversaries the Nestorials did think, but also according to the flesh was the Vine, from which life flowed into us as branches. And consequently that we as branches were joined not only to His deity but also to His humanity and so to His flesh, and do draw life and all our spiritual nourishment not only from His deity but also from His flesh. And the reason is brought from the hypostatical union which maketh the Word and His flesh taken into unity thereof to be but one person, one and the same Christ, one and the same Vine. Therefore, that we cannot be joined to the deity of Christ but also we must be united to His flesh, nor can we draw life from that, but we must also draw it from this. To declare plainly this near and real copulation of our flesh with the flesh of Christ, he brings a similitude of wax. Not that it every way agreeth in all things as is manifest, but because it fitly showeth our communion with Christ to be real and substantial. And this he meant when concluding he said, not only spiritually but also corporally, (that is, not only in respect of the spirit, but also in respect of the body) both Christ is the Vine and we His branches. This therefore he spake not of the manner of our coupling to Christ whether it be spiritual or corporal, but of the things which are coupled, namely, that not only our souls and our spirits are most nearly joined with the soul and spirit of Christ, but also our flesh with His flesh. This is to be gathered out of the adversaries’ proposition against which he argueth, which is that we are not joined with Christ in flesh. Coll. 500. B.

These adverbs therefore spiritually and corporally in Cyrill, do not signify the means by which we are united to Christ the vine, but the things which are united, as is already said and declared. But the means also Cyrill granteth to be spiritual, that is by our faith, and by the Spirit of Christ. For in every place he teacheth, and specially upon the sixth of John, that we eat the flesh of Christ by faith; and by this eating He proveth our incorporation.

Upon the 13th chapter; the 7th aphorism.

If any shall make exceptions concerning the law, thus: Were not the elect in the Old Testament endowed with grace to keep the law, as we in the New are endowed with grace to believe the gospel? I answer: They were, but not to the hearing of the law as we are with faith to the hearing of the gospel; but because they first believed in the evangelical promises concerning Christ, and for that cause received the gift (and yet but imperfectly and in part only) to keep the law; not because they heard the law, but because they believed in Christ to come; that always the obedience of the law might follow of the faith in Christ, even as an effect followeth the cause.

Upon the 14th chapter; aphorism 1. When we said that the signification of a sacrament is so received, that not the Word alone, nor the element alone, but the element together with the Word is called a sacrament--we meant nothing else but that as the Word alone without the element or sign cannot be said to be a sacrament, so neither can the sign without the Word. For a sacrament (as the church hath used to define it) is a visible sign of an invisible grace (add) by the Word, that is, by Christ’s institution, consecrated to that purpose, that is, altered from the common use to that matter. So Augustine Tom. 5. decivit. Dei. lib. 10. ca. 5. The visible sacrifice, is, a sacrament or a holy sign of the invisible sacrifice. And in D. de conf. dist. 2. ca. sacrif. A sacrament (saith he) is a visible form of an invisible grace. And the same Augustine Tom. 9. in Joh. tract. 80. saith concerning the Word of the gospel: The Word cometh to the element and so is made the sacrament, even that visible Word as it were. A sacrament therefore, according to the received signification in the church, we do and ever did acknowledge to be a visible sign. And whereof? Of an invisible grace. But from whence hath it the virtue to be sign of such a thing? From the Word of Christ the Institutor. For take away the Word and it shall be no sacrament. "Pull away the Word (saith Augustine) and what is the water, but water?" This is the meaning of our words: Not that the Word is the sacrament or, to speak properly, any part of the sacrament, inasmuch as a sacrament is defined to be a visible sign of an invisible grace; but because without the Word a visible element cannot be a sacrament of an invisible thing. But therefore it is the visible sign of an invisible thing, because by the Word of the Lord it is instituted thereunto.

Irenaeus also, making no mention of the Word, (because that is always supposed) hath left in writing: That the Eucharist, that is, the sacrament of the Eucharist, consisteth of two matters: an earthly, (that is, the sign) and a heavenly (that is, the thing signified) neither yet the thing signified, is the sign or the sacrament. But because the sign cannot be without the thing signified, (for else, whereof should it be a sign?) therefore, he said that the sacrament of the Eucharist consisted both of an earthly matter, (that is, the sign) and a heavenly matter, (that is, the thing signified.) This belongeth to the confirmation of that which we said concerning the Word and the element.

Upon the 15th chapter--of Baptism--the third aphorism. Of the water it appeareth in the Acts, where it is manifestly showed that never anything was mixed with the water by the apostles. Other form of baptizing, besides that which we have in Matthew 28:1-20, Christ did not institute; and that the apostle did simply follow Christ is beyond all controversy. Whereas therefore we read in the Acts that the apostles baptized some in the Name and into the Name of Christ--that doth nothing pertain to the Christian form of baptism. John indeed baptized into the Name of Christ as it appeareth, in which Name notwithstanding, as Ambrose expoundeth it, the Trinity was closely signified, as the person anointed, that is of the Son, in that He had taken the nature; the person anointing, that is the Father; and the anointing, that is the person of the Holy Ghost. But Christ Himself expressly set down the proper form of baptism saying, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore it is manifest that the phrase of speech, to be baptized into the Name of Christ, doth nothing belong to the form of Christian baptism. Which is also hereby confirmed, that we never read that the apostles baptized any, saying that they baptized them into the Name of Christ, but we read only that many were baptized in the Name and into the Name of Christ. Then what meant the Holy Ghost by that form or manner of speech? He meant, in my judgment, summarily to show thus much:

First, in that they which professed faith in Christ were commanded to be baptized, that it should be done by the name, authority, and commandment of Jesus Christ; yea, that they should be baptized in this form, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," even by commandment of Christ. Therefore they were baptized in the Name of Christ, that is, according to the commandment and form prescribed by Christ.

Secondly, they which were so baptized, as they were now incorporated into Christ by faith in God’s sight and admitted into the fellowship of the new covenant, so are they, by this sign of the new covenant, consecrated unto Christ in the sight of the congregation, and sealed, for to hold fast the faith in Him and to perform obedience to His commandments; and to be ingrafted into the body of His Church; and received into the communion of saints, and to a perpetual amendment of life, and to a continuance of faith in Jesus Christ to their lives end. For the whole church and every of the faithful are baptized into the death of Christ, and buried with Him, whereof the sign is the very dipping into the water, that thereby we may learn that throughout our whole life we must die unto sin and live unto righteousness, which is to be truly baptized into the Name of Christ, who died and was buried for us. The fourth aphorism. The substance also of the law, yea the canonical law, is perpetual, and forever to be holden. For Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets, touching the substance of doctrine. And it belongeth to the substance of the law of circumcision that they which are the covenant should be sealed unto God with the sign of the covenant. But now the sign of the covenant is baptism, which succeeded circumcision (Colossians 2:1-23).

Add the place of Peter out of Acts 2:38-39, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

Aphorism 6.

Whereas we said that Paul baptized again those of whom it is spoken in Acts 19:1-41, as being not rightly baptized, we said it without prejudice to any learned interpreter, for we condemn none. Only we desire the reader to believe(?) favorably of that word rebaptize. For we meant not that they which were rightly baptized were afterwards baptized again. But they which were not baptized with true baptism, where the true doctrine of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost went before it, they, after Paul had taught them the true and sound doctrine of Christ, then they took true baptism. And after baptism, by the laying on of hands, received the Holy Ghost and the gifts thereof. And this, to speak properly, was indeed not to be rebaptized, but to be truly baptized.

Now why I thought so, and do yet think--I was induced by the authority both of the fathers, and especially Ambrose, and Hieromo so expounding that place; and also by a reason drawn from the text itself.

Touching the authority: First, never any of the fathers did teach that these words, (and when they heard it they were baptized) were the words of Paul, spoken of them which heard John the Baptist; but expounded them as the words of Luke, spoken of them which heard Paul. So Chrysostom Tom. 3. in act. hom. 40. So Oecum in act. ca. 19. So Augustine Tom. 7. cont. Petil. ca. 7. So Gregory Tom. 1. in evang. hom. 20. So Bede in act ca. 19. So all the rest.

Moreover most of them do in plain terms write that these twelve disciples were baptized by Paul, or at least by Paul’s commandment, as having not been rightly baptized before, because they heard not the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nor were baptized into His Name. Ambrosius Tom. 2. despi. san. ad Theo. imp. ca. 3.

Lastly them themselves also which said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," were afterwards baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this abounded unto grace, because they then by Paul’s preaching knew the Holy Ghost, neither must it be thought a contrariety, because although afterwards no mention is made of the Holy Ghost. Yet it is believed, and that which is omitted in words is expressed in faith. For when it is said, "in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ," by the unity of the name is fulfilled the whole mystery; neither is the Holy Ghost separated from the baptism of Christ because John baptized to repentance, Christ in the Holy Ghost. Thus far Ambrose.

Hierome, Tom. 6. in Joel. ca. 2. pa. 66. Therefore (saith he) the saving health of God cannot be seen, except the Holy Ghost be poured down; and whoso saith that he believeth in Christ and believeth not in the Holy Ghost, he hath not the eyes of perfect faith. Whereon, also in the Acts of the Apostles, they which were baptized by John’s baptism into Him that was to come, that is, in the Name of the Lord Jesus; because when Paul asked them, they answered, We know not whether there be an Holy Ghost; they were baptized again, yea, they received true baptism because without the Holy Ghost, and the mystery of the Trinity, whatsoever is received in the name of the one or the other person is unperfect [imperfect], etc.

Augustine cont. Petil. cap. 7. coll. 498. saith. Paul baptized those twelve, either because they had not received John’s baptism, but lied; or else, if they had received it, yet they had not received Christ’s baptism. For he thought with Cyprian, and Tertullian, and other fathers, that John’s baptism and Christ’s did differ, of which matter more hereafter. Of our own writers also, that learned man Wolff. Musculus, about the place of Acts 19:1-41, thinketh as Ambrose doth, in his common place, the place of baptism, whose words because he handleth that place very largely, we will not repeat. And before Musculus, Bucer both on the third of Matthew and on the fourth of the epistle to the Ephesians; upon Matthew he hath these words: To those Ephesians, which had been baptized with John’s baptism, not knowing what it was, because as then they knew not the Holy Ghost, wherewith Paul had preached that Christ should baptize them, we read that he said in Acts 19:1-41, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Now what do we else, or ought we to do in baptizing? For ours is also the baptism of repentance; so long as those whom we baptize, we also bury into the death of Christ, that is, we ascribe them into that number which throughout all their life must die unto sin, and live unto righteousness; and yet shall not receive that neither, but by the gift of Christ. Therefore of such as be of years of discretion, whom we baptize, we require their faith in Christ; and the infants we commit unto the church to be brought up to the same faith. Therefore Paul would never have rebaptized those Ephesians if they had been baptized with John’s baptism, that is, with that baptism wherewith he used to baptize into repentance and the faith of Christ. But seeing they were (as Luke reporteth) only baptized into John’s baptism, which notwithstanding they knew not what it was, and were altogether ignorant of the baptism of Christ, that is, of the Spirit, he baptized them, showing unto them what John’s baptism was, and how he baptized into Christ, not into his own sprinkling or dipping of the water, as though that could be any profit unto them. He therefore baptized them with this baptism of John, that is, as John used to do, into the Name of the Lord Jesus. And by and by after laying on his hands, he baptized them with the baptism also of Christ, that is, with the Spirit. For immediately the Holy Ghost came on them, as it is there read. This there. And upon the epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 4, the same Bucer writeth thus: Hereby it is also manifest, that the twelve men at Ephesus, which knew not whether there were an Holy Ghost or no whom Paul baptized, were not baptized with the baptism of John, that is, with that which he administered; but as they witnessed themselves, they were baptized into John’s baptism. For John preached unto all whom he baptized that Christ should baptize them with the Holy Ghost, and exhorted them that they would believe in him, and that of him they might receive the Holy Ghost. And therefore these Ephesians could not have been ignorant of the Holy Ghost if they had been washed with that baptism which might truly be called John’s; which also the apostles’ words to those men doth sufficiently declare: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus" (Acts 19:4). For by these words he would teach us that they never received John’s baptism who as yet know not John’s preaching of Christ, and the promise. Thus far Bucer.

Seeing then the fathers expound this place in Acts 19:1-41 as we have now declared, who, I pray, am I that I should dare, or that I ought to gainsay so many and so learned men, in such an exposition of this Scripture, which neither doth any whit wrest the text, nor contrarieth any other Scriptures, nor is against the analogy of faith, nor bringeth with it any absurdities? For if any man shall object out of the text that same truly and but, it proveth nothing against the fathers’ exposition, seeing it is no unusual thing with the apostle, where he saith first truly, not always to join the adversative particle but (Romans 3:2; Colossians 2:23 and in other places). And unto this truly, another but, which Luke for brevity sake left out, might be understood very fitly, as hereafter we will show. So that it is no necessity, with this truly to join that but, which followeth in the 5th verse, in which verse the fathers will have not Paul’s speech, but Luke’s to be continued. Therefore the fathers’ exposition is not repugnant to the text; nor yet with any other Scripture. For if any man say Paul writeth to the Corinthians that he is glad he baptized none but the house of Stephana, it may be answered, it is true, namely at Corinth, but these twelve were baptized at Ephesus; and besides he speaketh of such as were baptized with his own hand, but these twelve he might baptize by some other; to dispute no longer about the circumstance of the time. And it is most certain it is not repugnant to the analogy of faith, nor bringeth with it any absurdities, because the fathers do not speak of a baptism rightly administered, as though Paul had repeated that again. This exposition therefore of the fathers, in my judgment, cannot easily be refelled [refuted]. And this therefore is the chiefest cause why I have ever thus thought and yet think of this action of Paul’s, although indeed I cannot consent unto them all, in the cause, why Paul baptized them, but only to Ambrose and Hierome. That John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism did differ, the fathers teach, both by this that John said, how he "baptized (only) with water," but Christ should baptize "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." And also by this, that the baptism of John is called "the baptism of repentance," but Christ’s baptism is said to be given "for the remission of sins." And because that he prepared the way to this, and (as Tertullian speaketh) that baptism of repentance was, as it were, a sueing for the remission of sins and sanctification in Christ which was to follow after. Read Tertul. of bapt. page 707. So Cyprian also in his sermon of the baptism of Christ, and of the manifestation of the Trinity, page 430, so August. To. 7. against. Petil. cap. 7. But all of us do not know what the fathers meant by this difference of the baptism. For they meant not that the one differed from the other in the matter, or in the sign, or in the doctrine and form of baptism, but only in efficacy; that namely, although remission of sins was given to them which were washed with John’s baptism, yet the same was not of John’s baptism, that is, of water, but by the baptism of Christ, which is the baptism of the Spirit, whereunto that belongeth: I baptize with water, but He with the Holy Ghost. And with this baptism of the Spirit were they only baptized which believed in Christ whom John said was then come, though all knew Him not. Therefore John in his baptism did inculcate and often repeat this faith, as Paul witnesseth in that place of the 19th chapter of Acts. They therefore are deceived who for this diversity did think the baptism of water was to be repeated.

August. against Petil. (as we touched a little before) showeth how some held opinion that the twelve did lie unto the apostle. When being asked unto what they were baptized, they answered: Unto John’s baptism. So by this--that first those Ephesians said unto him that they had not yet heard whether there were, that is, whether that Holy Ghost did exist or not, namely, the giver of those gifts whereof the speech was--the apostle might be said to convince them of a lie by this argument. Whosoever have been baptized they have professed faith in Christ as the Son of God, and consequently in the Father and in the Spirit of them both. For John did require this faith, and according to the same he baptized men; and in baptizing he always urged that Jesus Christ was He which should baptize in the Spirit. But you, by your own confession, do not know this Spirit, etc., and so believe not rightly in Jesus Christ. Therefore, etc. But surely, to say that these twelve did lie unto the church and to the apostle, it seems to me to be too hard and vile a thing in men which professed Christ. And for this cause we did ever better allow of the opinion of Ambrose and Hierome--that the twelve did say truly when they said they were baptized unto John’s baptism; but yet not by John himself, but by some one of John’s disciples who expounded not unto them the true doctrine concerning God, and therefore baptized them not rightly. But all the fathers do hold beyond all controversy that they which are not rightly baptized into Jesus Christ as the natural Son of God, and Mediator, and so also into His Father and the Spirit of them both, the same must be rightly baptized. And therefore those twelve were not, as being not baptized, rebaptized; but, as being not rightly baptized Paul did baptize them with true baptism, first teaching them the true doctrine of the Trinity, which also John had preached unto them. And thus much of the authority of the fathers, from whom either in their assertions or in their expositions of Scriptures, especially where they all for the most part do agree, I dare not decline for my conscience sake, unless I be constrained by most apparent reasons. Thus I freely confess to the whole of Christ. The reason also, (besides the authority of the fathers) brought as we saw before, even by the fathers, out of the very text, confirmeth me in the same opinion. This reason is partly gathered out of those words which these Ephesians, being asked by Paul whether they had received the Holy Ghost, that is, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, answered saying that they had not so much as heard whether there be, that is, whether that Holy Ghost be existent, whom Paul would have to be the author of those gifts; so far from them it was that they should have received Him and His gifts. And partly it is gathered out of the words which Paul used concerning the doctrine and baptism of John saying, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." As if he had said, You have not rightly believed in Christ such as He is, the Son of God, God; seeing ye know not His Spirit. The conclusion followed that therefore they, although they were baptized by I know not whom into John’s baptism yet were not rightly baptized, seeing they were not instructed in the doctrine of the person of Christ in whom they ought to believe, namely, that He was not only man and the Messias, but also the Son of God, God; from whom also and from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and consequently not in the doctrine of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the name of all which baptism is to be given. And therefore that they ought to learn the true doctrine concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and resting therein to receive lawful baptism. That afterwards by laying on of hands, they might receive the gifts of this Holy Spirit, which Luke teacheth to be afterwards done, saying, But when they heard it, (namely, those twelve Ephesians) what when they heard? Even, when they perceived Paul’s doctrine concerning true faith in Christ the Son of God, and so in His Father and the Holy Ghost, which faith John had also preached and wherein they resting were baptized, etc. This is the interpretation of the fathers--namely, that those twelve were not rightly instructed in the doctrine of God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, and so neither rightly baptized. And it may be confirmed, both by the kindred and country of those twelve, and also by the cause for which Paul, letting alone all the rest, peculiarly asked them whether they have received the Holy Ghost, since they believed. By kind they were Jews as appeareth by John’s baptism unto which they said they were baptized; and they were baptized by a Jew. But the Jews for the most part never rightly held the doctrine of the three persons subsisting in one essence. And therefore these twelve Jews also, though they granted Jesus to be the true Messias, yet they seemed to acknowledge but only two persons--the person of God the Father, and the person of the Messias, even (as the most thought) a bare man, but yet such a one as in whom God the Father dwelt; but that they were altogether ignorant that the Holy Ghost was an existing thing, and the giver of those graces, they are convinced by their own words. But surely there was some cause why Paul, coming into Ephesus where were many of Christ’s disciples, asked this question of the twelve Jews only. Surely it is to be thought by their answer that the apostle, either by their own talk or by telling of some other of the brethren, perceived that these twelve did not think aright concerning the Holy Ghost.

Finally, this was the apostle’s argument whereby he would prove by their own answer that they were not baptized with the true baptism of John.

Whosoever hath been baptized with the true baptism of John, he hath also heard his doctrine concerning God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and hath professed the same, and consequently hath known also the Holy Ghost. This proposition is not expressed, but the proof of it the apostle bringeth in the 4th verse saying, "John verily baptized," etc., that is, John preached not only repentance but also faith in Christ; namely, that He is not only man the Messias, but also the Son of God, God; from whom, as also from the Father, proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and that He shall baptize in the Holy Ghost. And therefore all which desire to be saved must also believe in Him as the true Savior. But you have not heard this doctrine, nor professed it, and therefore have not truly believed in Christ, such as He is. For ye yourselves say, ye have not so much as heard whether there be an Holy Ghost, (namely, when he were baptized). Therefore, etc. So consequently it remaineth that professing this doctrine and faith, ye now receive lawful baptism, and afterward by the laying on of hands those gifts of the Holy Ghost. This is the declaration of the argument according to the exposition of the fathers. But Luke, as the prophets and evangelists use to do, comprehended the whole sum in few words. And I pray, what absurdity can follow hereon? Or what injury is done to the apostle’s narration? Is the heresy of the Donatistes and Anabaptists maintained? Nothing less. For they rebaptize such as are rightly baptized; the apostle baptizeth them which had not been rightly baptized, As having not heard nor professed the true doctrine concerning God, he took care they should be rightly baptized. And such when they come into the catholic church, (we speak of them that be of years of discretion) all the fathers teach they must be baptized with true baptism, instructing them first in the doctrine concerning God, and Christ their Savior.

Touching the text itself--it is no whitt wrested. That their answer, "We have not so much as heard whether there by any Holy Ghost," cannot be understood of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, it appeareth by Paul’s demand following, being asked with an admiration, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" For no man is baptized unto the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but unto the Holy Ghost itself, as also unto the Father, and the Son. And the apostles held it for certain, beyond all doubt, that whosoever were baptized either of John and his true disciples, or of Christ’s disciples, they were surely baptized with instruction of the true doctrine of the Holy Ghost also, according to Christ’s institution. Hereupon was that admiration, "Unto what then were ye baptized?" They answered him, "Unto John’s baptism." For Paul thought this could not stand together that they should be baptized with John’s lawful baptism, and yet should not know, nay, not so much as hear, whether there were and whether there did exist an Holy Ghost, whom John both knew and preached unto all that came to his baptism. Neither did he preach Christ without this Holy Ghost. For he said that he baptized in water, but Christ Jesus should baptize in the Holy Ghost.

Hereupon was it, that meaning to convince them, that they were not baptized of John nor of his true disciples, he added saying, "John verily baptized," etc. This truly or verily is an adversative particle, whereby he would show how it could not agree with the lawful baptism of John that they said they had not so much as heard (namely when they were baptized) whether there by an Holy Ghost or no, since John baptized none without mentioning the same. And to this truly here expressed, doth a but closely understood make answer, so that the argument is such, as before we set down. "John verily baptized," etc., as though he had said: John preached both repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, such as He is, namely the Son of God, from whom as also from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and who baptizeth in the Holy Ghost, and into the confession of this doctrine, he baptizeth men. The minor was to be added which Luke expressed not, because it is contained in the twelve’s own confession, But "we have not so much as heard," etc. What is plainer than this text? That therefore which followeth in the 5th verse, but "when they heard this," etc., is Luke’s own words, showing truly and briefly what followed upon Paul’s argumentation, but "when they heard," etc., (namely these twelve)--when they heard what? What it is truly to believe in Christ and that He baptized men according to the confession of this doctrine concerning Christ, and His Father and the Holy Ghost; and that Christ alone, as the only Savior, baptized men into the Holy Ghost. When they heard (I say) these things, not only with the ears of their bodies but also of their minds, and so believed and confessed the same, "they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus." That is, into Jesus, as He is called and described in the Scriptures, not only man but also the Son of God, God; from whom, as also from the Father proceedeth the Holy Ghost, and therefore as a true and only Savior baptizeth us with His Holy Spirit.

Add this also, that by the new interpretation, there is admitted in a little narration, no small bartologie(?) or superfluity of words. For when Paul said, "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," to what end should the apostles have added this concerning them whom John baptized, but "when they heard," namely, that company of those men, were baptized. For who could not understand by the words going before, if John baptized; they therefore which had heard and professed his doctrine concerning repentance and faith in Christ, were by John baptized. To conclude, if I should allow that interpretation, I see not what Paul could else prove by this whole narration, but that those Ephesians had been rightly baptized; and therefore that nothing else remained but that by laying on of hands, they might receive the Holy Ghost. But this conclusion, I do not think to agree with that which goeth before it, but to be needless.

I have to my power, declared the exposition of the fathers upon this place, and that modestly and without prejudice to any; to no other end but that I may by such reasons as I am able declare unto the brethren which perhaps have took [taken] offense at that particle in my confession, that Paul did baptize those twelve again which had not been rightly baptized; that I did not put those words rashly in my confession. By the way as I said, we condemn no other mens’ interpretation. And this also I freely profess, that my conscience is such that I cannot be easily drawn to dissent from the ancient fathers, either in their assertions or in their interpretations of Scriptures, unless I be convinced and enforced by manifest testimonies of Holy Scriptures, by necessary consequences and plain demonstrations. For so doth my conscience rest, and in this settled stay of mind I desire to die. And therefore I humbly desire of all the brethren that if in this behalf my opinion be not altogether as theirs is, they will by no means take offense, especially seeing that in all the principal points of Christian faith we have a sound agreement.

Upon the 16th chapter, the 9th aphorism. The place of 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 being diligently marked (as also we noted before in the 15th chapter and 14th aphorism) may well decide the controversy about the wicked mens’ eating, that is, the hypocrites; and of the sacramental eating.

We say that hypocrites do not eat the true body of Christ, since they are void of faith (namely, they eat it not truly and indeed, since it is not indeed eaten but only by true faith, which they want [lack]) but only sacramentally, that is, they eat indeed the sacrament and the sign itself. The adversaries say also that hypocrites do eat the true body of Christ only sacramentally, but by this word they mean that they receive not only the sacrament, that is, the sign, but all the thing itself, though not unto salvation. If they mean this in the same sense that the apostle doth when he said the Corinthians were all sanctified, justified, etc., namely that by receiving baptism the sacrament of true regeneration and sanctification, they were reckoned to have received the thing also, since the very sacrament hindereth not, but they might also be partakers of the true sanctification, although all of them did not indeed obtain the same, by reason of their hypocritical faith; then doubtless I see not but such a manner of speaking may be well allowed. So it be declared as it ought, after the apostle’s meaning. This I only allege that the brethren may bethink them of some good means of agreement that so great an offense and scandal may be rooted out of the Church. We must all stand before Christ’s tribunal seat.