Answer. Albeit, that this specially belong unto those confutations which I would ⟨image 152⟩differ to their proper place, notwithstanding that the force of the former argument may appear more clearly, go too, let us speak somewhat also now concerning this matter. Indeed I grant that the Supper of the Lord hath his peculiar form, whereby it differeth from the rest, aswell old as new Sacraments. But to what end is this: For these forms, which are called discerning forms, because they do discern the specials of the same general, they do not take away the constituting in which of necessity all the specials must be constituted, that they may be referred to the common general. So for example sake, a living creature is the common essential form, and substance of all forms pertaining to that gender. Now reason is the form, whereby man is sundered from all other kinds of living creatures. Now wilt thou say that this same special form doth bring to pass that that same general (to wit, living creature) should not be laid altogether by the same reason of man and of other living creatures: And ⟨image 152⟩I pray thee, how if that which is called differentia or proprium: for now I do not distinguish betwixt these, should altogether take away the same attribution of gender, should the distinction consist of gender and difference: Therefore that same special difference of the lords Supper whatsoever it be, can not bring to pass that that same common reason which maketh a Sacrament, altogether by the same mean, should less be spoken of the Lords Supper, then of other Sacraments. Now that same common reason, as we have showed, is that the outward sign should signify another thing sacramentally. Now nothing is a sign of it self, forasmuch as a sign is in the kind of those things which are conferred with another, therefore that same remaineth common without exception to all Sacraments, that the thing signified is not the sign: because these two must be in very deed, and therefore the thing signified, can not be said of the sign but transitively.
But furthermore here I will demand of thee what manner of difference thou ⟨image 153⟩makest this to be:
Answeare. Albeit, that this specially belong vnto those confutations which I woulde ⟨image 152⟩differ to their proper place, notwithstanding that the force of the former argument may appeare more clearely, go too, let vs speake somewhat also nowe cōcerning this matter. Indeede I graūt that the Supper of the Lorde hath his peculiar fourme, whereby it differeth from the rest, aswell olde as newe Sacramentes. But to what ende is this: For these fourmes, which are called discerning fourmes, because they doe discerne the specials of the same generall, they doe not take away the constituting in which of necessitie all the specialls must be constituted, that they may bee referred to the common general. So for example sake, a liuing creature is the common essential fourme, and substance of all fourmes perteyning to that gender. Now reason is the fourme, whereby man is sundred from all other kindes of liuing creatures. Nowe wilt thou say that this same speciall fourme doth bring to passe that that same generall (to wit, liuing creature) should not be layde altogether by the same reason of man and of other liuing creatures: And ⟨image 152⟩I pray thee, how if that which is called differentia or proprium: for nowe I doe not distinguish betwixt these, should altogether take away the same attribution of gender, should the distinction consist of gender and difference: Therfore that same speciall difference of the lords Supper whatsoeuer it be, can not bring to passe that that same common reason which maketh a Sacrament, altogether by the same meane, should lesse be spoken of the Lords Supper, then of other Sacramentes. Nowe that same common reason, as we haue shewed, is that the outwarde signe should signifie another thing sacramentally. Nowe nothing is a signe of it selfe, forasmuch as a signe is in the kynde of those thinges which are conferred with another, therfore that same remaineth common without exception to all Sacraments, that the thing signified is not the signe: because these two must bee in very deede, and therefore the thing signified, can not be sayde of the signe but transitiuely.
But furthermore here I will demaund of thee what manner of difference thou ⟨image 153⟩makest this to be:
