Christian Questions and Answers Part 2, Catechism · Question 164 – Question 200
163. Queſtion.
And is it not otherwiſe called of the auncient fathers?
Anſweare.
Therefore alſo lette vsus way theſe names. Certayne men doe in this argument reckon vp the names of the Liturgie or ſeruice, of the Synaxis or the gathering together of the people, & of Agape ye feaſts of louelove, but in my iudge ment, not rightly enough. For by thoſe two former names are ſignified not onelyonly thoſe myſteries, but alſo thoſe other partes of the publike woorſhip of God. For foreign as all that are not vtterly ignoraunt of the Greeke tongue knowe, is the ſelfe ſame that to execute any publike miniſtery is, which afterwarde is drawen to all eccleſiaſticall functions, like as the Apoſtle alſo calleth himſelf foreign the ſeruant of Ieſus Chriſt, & his office he calleth foreign.
Queſtion.
Thou art not ignoraunt that the olde Latine interpreter. Actes 13. 2. hath turned foreign ſacrificing
Anſweare.
I knowe it it very well, and in very deede he hath done it very fooliſhly, vnleſſe wee will alſo make the Angels, Sacrificers, as they that are called foreign miniſtring ſpirits. Heb. 1. 14. and Magiſtrates. Rom. 13. 4.
Queſtion.
But yet ſo it ſeemeth too be taken. Luke. 1. 23. Heb. 10. 11.
Anſweare.
Nay rather there alſo it is taken for the whole office of the Prieſthood. The name alſo of foreign that is too ſay a meeting together, is larger, although it were at length tranſlated, too that ſame principall parte thereof, too wit, too ſignifie the Lordes ſupper. Nowe they called foreign thoſe ſame common holie Banquettes and whatſoeuer was doone in them, as Tertullian declareth at large, in his defence. Iude alſo vſeth the ſame name. Iude the twelfth verſe: the name beeyng taken from hence, becauſe then they vſed certayne choyce, Daynties and Iunkets, and alſo becauſe Chriſtians did ſo teſtifie theyr mutuall LoueLove and moſt neere coniunction.
164. Queſtion.
But what thinkeſt thou of the name of Euchariſt or thankeſgeuing.
Anſweare.
The Supper of the Lord was ſo called, not in reſpect that it was a Sacrament, but as it was a Sacrifice.
165. Queſtion.
Therefore with thee, the Supper of the Lord is a Sacrifice.
Anſweare.
It is ſo indeed, And that in a threefold reſpect: firſt in this reſpect that we offer ſome thing to God in the ſame, to wit, that ſame ſolemn giuing of thanks, by that commaundement of Chriſt, As oft as yee ſhall doe theſe thinges, yee ſhall ſhewe foorth the Lordes death. By which reaſon the Supper of the Lorde may be ſayde to ſucceede in the place of all thoſe Sacrifices which they called peace offeringes. Moreouer becauſe the almes were beſtowed in it, peraduenture by the ordinance of the Apoſtle. 1. Cor. 16. 2. the which almes were called Proſpherai or Oblations out of that ſētence of Chriſt, that which you ſhall doe to the leaſt of theſe, you doe it vntounto me. Thirdly becauſe it doth as it were renewe that ſame ſacrifice, of the Lords death, after a certaine ſorte ſet before our eyes in thoſe myſteries. Neyther is it otherwiſe to bee expounded whatſoeuer is read of that ſacrifice and vnbloodie oblation of Chriſt in the olde and more pure fathers, as well the Greekes as Latine.
Queſtion
Doeſt thou not thinke therefore, that Chriſt is offered againe vntounto his Father, of the Prieſt in verie deed for the quicke and the deade.
Anſweare.
Out vponupon that blaſphemy the moſt execrable of all that euer were.
166. Queſtion.
But what thinkeſt thou of the name of the Sacrament of the Altar?
Anſweare.
It is certaine that there was ſome kinde of altar ſet in a conuenient place, whether the giftes and offerings were caryed, (as alſo now the Popes Canon hath) out of which were taken bread & wine, wc were appointed to the holy miſteries. And this was the Ambrie as it were of theſe LoueLove feaſts, by the exā ple of Chriſte. And the Miniſter was wont to ſtande at that place bleſſing the bread and wine. But heere ſee together with mee the crafte of Sathan. For there is no doubte but vſing the occaſion of this Aultar hee tranſfonrmed the Sacrament intoo a Sacrifice, and that Propitiatorie. But in the writinges of the Apoſtles there is no mention of an Aultar, but onelyonly of the Lordes Table. Of ſo greace waight is it, not too bring any thing raſhly, no vee it neuer ſo indifferent, intoo the Churche.
167. Queſtion.
And what thinkeſt thou concerning the Maſſe?
Anſweare.
Of the thing it ſelf, that is to ſay, of the impietie thereof, ſuche as the like was neuer, wee will ſpeake in hys proper place. Nowe I ſay that the woorde is altogether barbarous. For the Auncient Latines, too whome that woorde was proper, ſayde not Miſſam but Miſſas. For I can alſo ſheweRomanum capitulare thee, an olde Romiſhe Grayle as they call it, in which they ſay in the plurall number and in the Newter Gender Miſſa. Neyther can that woorde ſignifie any other thing, then thinges ſent, to witte, Oblations which eueryevery man brought in theyr meeting. For concerning that certayne men hauehave written of the ſending away of the companie, and much more ſome hauehave made much ado about the Etimologie of the Hebrue worde, it ſeemeth too mee altogether abſurde.
168. Queſtion.
Concerning the names themſelues, ſufficiently is ſaide. Now I pray thee define vntoo mee the Supper it ſelfe.
Anſweare.
Then I define the Supper of the Lord, to be an holy action, cōmanded of Chriſt to all the faithfull of ripe yeeres, too continue in the Churche too the end of the worlde, in which by a fitte Analogie and proportion of Elementes and Ceremonies, the memory aſwell of his death is liuely ſet before vsus, as alſo our incorporation intoo him through faith, is ſpiritually ſealed, and our mutuall coniunction in him ratified. Finally a ſolemne geuing of thankes is payed vntounto him.
Queſtion.
I would gladly then hauehave this definition particularly declared vntounto me.
Anſwere.
Why I ſay it too be an holy action, thou haſt knowen before in the definition of a Sacrament: If thou demand of the reſt, I will anſweare thee in order.
169. Queſtion.
I hauehave vnderſtood alſo before why thou ſayeſt it was commaunded of Chriſt to continue to the end of the world, or till he come agayne, as hee himſelf ſpeaketh. But why doeſt thou add [vntounto the faithful that are of ripe yeeres?
Anſweare.
Becauſe that foraſmuche as the examining of a mans owne ſelfe by the Apoſtolical doctrine is required, we muſt needes determine that they are to bee ſhut out, who neyther can proue themſelues, neyther are able to make confeſſion of theyr fayth which they might examine.
Queſtion.
Wilt thou therefore hauehave children made men, and finally, thoſe which are not taught in Chriſtian religion, ſhut out?
Anſweare.
What els: And therefore the ſupper of the Lord to be prophaned of thoſe which miniſter it to Infantes.
Queſtion.
And yet to the eating of the Paſchall Lambe, in whoſe place ſucceded the Supper of the Lorde, children alſo were admitted.
Anſweare.
I graunt it. But they were of that age, that they could aſke their Fathers, and myght bee taught of them, as is playne. Exod. 12. 26.
170. Queſtion.
Why diddeſt thou adde [in the Churche?
Anſweare.
That thou mighteſt knowe that it is not a priuate, but a commō action, that is to ſay, an action in the congregation, eyther of ſome whole church, or of ſome particular, finally not to bee celebrated of any one priuatly but in common, whereof we ſhall ſpeake afterwardes, when we ſhall diſpute agaynſt the abuſes of the holie Supper.
171. Queſtion.
What calleſt thou the elementes?
Anſweare.
That ſame bread & that wine.
172. Queſtion.
Why doeſt thou adde that ſame bread and that wine?
Anſweare.
That I may diſtinguiſh holy things from common things. For ſo alſo Paule ſpeaketh. 1. Cor. 11. 16. 17.
Queſtion.
But in what thing conſiſteth this difference?
Anſweare.
Not in the ſubſtance but in the qualitie and vſe. For common bread & common wine are ſette before vsus, that they may nouriſhe this life: but that ſame bread and that ſame wine, are therefore giuen vsus, that they might be both ſignes & ſeales of the communicating of that body, geuen for vsus, and of the blood ſhed for vsus, and that into euerlaſting life.
173. Queſtion.
And what are thoſe ſame rites belonging vntounto the Sacrament?
Anſweare.
Touching that that belongeth vntounto the miniſter, to bleſſe, too breake, too powre out, to geue: concerning that, that belongeth to the gueſtes, too take too eate, to drinke.
174. Queſtion.
And what is ſignified aſwel by theſe elementes, as by thoſe ceremonies ſacramētally?
Anſweare.
Surely yt bread is ye ſacramētall ſigne of that body geuen for vsus, and that wine of that blood ſhedde for vsus: finally, both two of whole Chriſt, as of our euer laſting meate. The bleſſyng was appoynted not ſo muche to ſignifie ſome myſterie, as partly to confirme thoſe which came to the Lordes Table, partly to perfect that ſame Sacrament, and partly to celebrate ſome ſolempne action of thankes giuing. Of which matter it ſhall be meete to entreate apart. Now the breaking of the bread is a ſigne of the paſſion of Chriſt.
175. Queſtion.
Whence doeſt thou geather this? For there are which referre this ſpecially to the vſe of vnleauened or ſweet breades, which it is manifeſt was not very thick, and for the cutting wherof there needed no knyfe. Moreouer they ſay alſo, that to breake bread, by the Hebrew phraſe ſignifieth as much as to diſtribute & plentifully to giuegive bread.
Anſweare.
Both the things that theſe men ſay, is very true, but this ſame laſt is by no means agreeable to thoſe things which the Lord did & commaunded to be done. For it is written, he brake, he gaue, wereby there can not be (vnderſtood by the name of breaking, the diſtributiō of bread. Now I graunt that ſome other, and I adde further, that houſholders were wont, yea, beſides the vſe of vnleauened bread, to breake bread to the vſe of their houſholde. But the Apoſtle manifeſtly ſheweth that this ryte albeit it was common, yet it became ſacramentall, and that by reaſon of thoſe ſame mentioned puniſhments which the lord ſuffered for our cauſe, for ſo much as hee wrote, in ſteed of theſe wordes, that is giuen, that is broken.
176. Queſtion.
Yea, but one bone was not broken in him.
Anſweare.
I graunt it: but yet verely hee was torne and rent both with the tormentes of minde and body, and there is nothing more vſuall in the woorde of God, then this Metaphor, whereby it is alſo ſayd, that the heart is bruſed & broken. Nowe this giuing, or outwarde offring of the ſignes is to be taken, as if Chriſte himſelfe ſhould giuegive him ſelfe vntounto vsus with his owne hande, to be vſed and enioyed, and ſhoulde inſinuate himſelfe wholy vntounto vsus, which thing alſo in verie deede he perfourmeth inwardly by the power of his holy ſpirite, vnles that our vnbeliefe hinder it.
Now the outward receiuing, wherby we lay holde vponupon the elements as with the hand, it anſwereth the inward receiuing by fayth, that betwixt vsus and Chriſt there may be perfected and concluded as it were a certaine bargayne, Chriſt demaunding, Wilt thou receiue me inwardly by fayth, euen as I doe outwardly deliuer thee, theſe ſame ſeales of my promiſe by my miniſter into thy handes? And fayth anſwering, I wil Lord, and by fayth I receiue thee, euen as this hand receiueth theſe ſeales giuen vntounto it.
Nowe the eating of that breade, and the drinking of that wine, declareth the applying of Chriſte layde holde vponupon by fayth, whereby it is brought to paſſe, that being truely made partakers of him, we more and more drawe out of him whatſoeuer belongeth to our ſaluation.
177. Queſtion.
But what is the proportion and the analogie of theſe ſignes with the thinges ſignified?
Anſweare.
This analogie or proportion is manifeſt in it ſelfe. For ſeeing that breadeand wine is moſt fit aboue other meats, for the nouriſhing of our bodies, they do moſt fitly ſet forth him vntounto vsus in whō onelyonly euerlaſting life reſteth. But the breaking of breade and the pouring foorth of wine, doeth as it were ſet before our eyes thoſe infinit torments that the Lord ſuffered for our ſakes, that wee might in a maner looke vponupon him with our very eyes hanging bloodie vponupon the Croſſe, and inſtilling into vsus out of his pierced ſide euerlaſting life. Hitherto belongeth that ſame ſaying. De conſec diſt. 2. When the offering is taken, whiles the blood is poured out of the cuppe into the mouthes of the faythful, what other thing is ſet foorth thē the offering vp of the Lords body vponupon the croſſe, and the pouring foorth of his blood from his ſide? Finally the eating and drinking doeth ſo expreſly and in a manner ſo liuely declare as it were our tranſformation into Chriſte him ſelfe, and his inſinuation againe into vsus, whereby he him ſelfe liueth in vsus, and we againe in him, that nothing can be more euident. For what can be more nearely ioyned vntounto vsus, then that which we eate and drynke, as that which is tranſformed & chaunged into our ſelues?
178. Queſtion.
But yet thou haſt ſaide nothing of our mutuall conſociation into one body.
Anſweare.
That alſo appeareth by the whole ceremony. For ſeeyng that we take one and the ſelfe ſame meat from one and the ſelf ſame table, wee profeſſe that wee are of one and the ſelfe ſame Houſholde, and wee promyſe eche too others our mutuall helpes by this ſolempne ceremony. Hitherto alſo belongeth that ſame analogie and proportion of bread & wyne, made of many graines into one body, which liuely ſetteth as it were before our eyes our mutuall knitting and growing vp together as mēbers vnderunder one heade. Wherefore alſo Auguſtine calleth this myſterie the bonde of louelove, which is expounded plainely by the Apoſtle. 1. Cor. 10. 17.
179. Queſtion.
But why are there two Elementes giuen in the Supper, and but one in Baptiſme?
Anſweare.
Becauſe Chriſt in Baptiſme is ſet forth vntounto vsus as a Lauer, & water alſo onelyonly ſuffiſeth to waſhe away filthines. But in the Lords ſupper, foraſmuch as Chriſt is ſet forth vntounto vsus as that heauenly nouriſhment, and this life needeth not onelyonly eating, but alſo drinking, not without cauſe not onelyonly bread but alſo wine is giuē in the ſupper of the Lorde, that we might knowe that wee ought to ſeeke our whole lyfe in Chriſt alone.
180. Queſtion.
Doeſt thou therefore thinke the vſe of that wine to be as neceſſary as the vſe of that bread?
Anſweare.
What els? And therefore that the vſe of the Cupp was taken from Chriſtians not without the inſtinct of Sathan. Of which matter we will ſpeake in the refutation of abuſes.
181. Queſtion.
But what doeſt thou thinke of taking the Sacrament with the hande, which alſo the Romiſh Church tooke away?
Anſweare.
Albeit I wil not ſay, that the taking or touching with the hand is ſo preciſely neceſſarie, as the other Sacramentall rytes (for he alſo receyueth that receiueth with his mouth) yet notwithſtanding, I thinke that this alſo ought to be reſtored in the Church. For it is more playne then that it can be denyed, that the auncient & Apoſtolical Church did the ſame: and it is playne, that this ſame thruſting of the bread into the mouth ſprang firſt from a certaine prepoſterous and altogeather ſuperſtitious reuerence of the Sacraments, as though men were vnworthie to handle the holy Elements, when as notwithſtanding the mouth is more impure then the hande. To be ſhort there, is no man but ſeeth, vnleſſe it bee hee which hath no eyes, from whence this ſuperſtition cōmeth, that ſame doting dreame of tranſubſtantiation once beeyng receiued.
182. Queſtion.
Then thou much leſſe alloweſt the taking away, of the breaking of bread.
Anſweare.
Thou thinkeſt rightly. For this being taken away, the proportion or the analogie of the death of Chriſt is takē away, as we hauehave ſhewed before.
183. Queſtion.
To cōclude thē, what thinkeſt thou of that, that eating is chaunged into adoration, caring about, & finally into an oblation for the quicke & the dead?
Anſweare.
Surely that Sathā hath euen paſſed himſelf by bringing this impiety, ſeing that ther was neuer any ſuch groſſe idolatry heard of, no not amongſt the moſt prophane Gentiles.
184. Queſtion.
Goe to then, let vsus ſpeake of the bleſſing or conſecration.
Anſweare.
Why, thou haſt alreadie ſhewed what this thing is: foraſmuch as by the name of conſecration is vnderſtood bleſſing.
Queſtion.
So then I ſuppoſe that thou calleſt it, that which the diuines alſo cal ſanctification, that is to ſay, a tranſlation from a common vſe to a holy woorſhip of God. But againſt this interpretation there are certaine ſtoppes. For the Euangeliſtes doe vſe in this ſelfe ſame argument of the ſupper, two Greeke woords commonly and indifferently one for another, the one to bleſſe, the other to giuegive thankes. Now that theſe doe differ within thē ſelues it may ſpecially appeare by this, that to bleſſe, is alwayes taken tranſitiuely, but to giuegive thankes, alwayes intranſitiuely. Moreouer alſo that ſame common ſanctification, to witte whereby it is brought to paſſe, that we may lawfully vſe meates, is manifeſtly diſtinguſhed, from thanks giuing and prayers, as the conſequēt from the antecedent.
Anſweare.
It is an vſuall thyng with the Hebrewes, whoſe phraſe the writinges of the Apoſtles do ſauour of, to vnderſtand the conſequent by the antecedent, therefore to giuegive thankes, albeit it bee alwayes ſet down abſolutely, yet notwithſtanding it is taken in this argument, for to ſanctifie with thankes giuing: and againe this action of thankes giuing is ſpoken generally of prayers, the Apoſtle vſing the name of interceſſion, though in an vnequall thing, yet not altogether vnlyke. So alſo to bleſſe, whē it is attributed to God, is takē for too ſanctifie, Moyſes him ſelfe being interpreter. Gen. 2. verſe 3.
Queſtion.
But that Chriſt in the hiſtory of the holy Supper, ſpeaketh as a Mediatour & as man, hereby it appeareth, that the Euangeliſtes, as I hauehave ſayde, vſe this worde, to giuegive thankes, indifferently, which by no meanes can be attributed to God.
Anſweare.
Thou thinkeſt rightly. Therefore there is no doubt, but that in Paule 1. Cor. 10. 16. that which we bleſſe, Oecumenius hath interpreted out of the Hebrewe phraſe and maner of ſpeach, That which we prepare by bleſſing. Nowe bleſſing is referred partly to God and partly to the Elements them ſelues, as it is firſt inſtituted of Chriſt in this matter, as he who after his maner firſt bleſſed God his father, that is to ſay, gaue him thankes. In which reſpect alſo this myſterie may be called a ſacrifice of prayſe and thankeſgiuing, and therewithall that the ſonne as the Lorde of his fathers houſeholde might ſanctifie the elements taken, that they might not be that which they were by nature, but might beginne to be that ſacramentally, to which aſwell in ſignifying as in giuing and ſealing they were by his will appoynted: ſo as alſo they might take the very names of the things ſignified, as if they were the ſame thing that ſacramentally they ſignified. Nowe that which was then firſt inſtituted and done of him, as it is performed by his commaundement, ſo alſo it is performed by his power, as of him who hath ſayd, doe this.
185. Queſtion.
But of this bleſsing there is no certaine fourme preſcribed, ſpecially concerning the action of giuing of thankes.
Anſweare.
I graunt it. Therefore it was free for the Churches to preſcribe a fourme of ſo many and ſo great benefites as was thought expedient: ſo that in the very ſubſtance of the matters they went not any whit from the written worde. And hereupon not onelyonly that Canon, which they called the Greeke and Latin Canon, but alſo thoſe manifolde liturgies or fourmes of prayer, called by that name were encreaſed, interlined and corrupted by litle and litle, that not onelyonly they became the very ſincke of all ſuperſtition but alſo of all vngodlineſſe.
186. Queſtion.
But is there not alſo ſome kynde of fourme preſcribed of the Sacramentall benediction?
Anſweare.
Yes certes, it is preſcribed in playne wordes of the three Euangeliſts and of Paule.
Queſtion.
But why rather of this then of that?
Anſweare.
Becauſe it onelyonly belongeth vntounto Chriſt, to conſtitute and appoynt Sacramentes, by preſcript wordes of him ſelfe, leaſt whiles wee vary from the wordes, wee alſo ſtraye from his will. Nowe it was not needefull to preſcribe certayne ſet wordes which wee ſhoulde vſe in the expounding of his inſtitution, in prayer & in giuing of thankes. Therfore it ought to ſuffiſe vsus to hauehave thoſe things preſcribed, according to the rule whereof, wee ought to require thoſe of ours.
187. Queſtion.
And what is that ſame Sacramentall forme?
Anſweare.
Euen the ſame that is preſcribed of the three Euangeliſtes and of Saynte Paule.
188. Queſtion.
And yet theſe doe ſomewhat varie amongſt themſelues in wordes.
Anſweare.
But in the matter it ſelfe they varie not any whit at all, therefore it ſkilleth not which of theſe thou folowe. But this ſame little variety in woordes ſheweth that we muſt not ſticke in the ſillables themſelues (which is altogether magicall) but we muſt marke the ſignification of the wordes: Neither for al that, is it lawfull for vsus to goe any whitte from the preſcript wordes.
189. Queſtion.
Thinkeſt thou not then theſe woordes are woorking and effectual wordes?
Anſweare.
No indeede, if thou call them woorking woordes wherein there ſhould be ſome woorking force too woorke ſome ſecrete thing effectually. For that which I had ſayde before, now I ſay againe, that there is no other vſe of thoſe woordes then to declare his minde that ſpeaketh. But if thou call them woorking woorks whereby is declared both what is doone of the Paſtor, and what ought to be doone of the flocke, and alſo what God him ſelfe dooth, then I will ſay that they are all woorking woordes. For thoſe woordes, He tooke, he brake, and gaue to his diſciples, ſhew what Paſtors ought to do. Againe thoſe woordes, take yee, eate yee, drinke yee, ſhewe what the flocke ought to-doe. For it foloweth Do you this. Finally thoſe woordes This is my bodie which is giuen for you, and this is my bloode of the newe teſtament which is ſhed for you, ſignifie what himſelfe woorketh and perfourmethin the minds of the hearers, in this action by his own power alone. For neither are theſe things rehearſed in that action of the miniſter of the woorde hiſtorically: but that al may vnderſtand that then theſe thinges are done, which our Lord commaunded to be done.
190. Queſtion.
Wilt thou therefore that the inſtitution of our Lorde bee playnely rehearſed?
Anſweare.
Yea, not onelyonly playnely, but in that tongue alſo, which may bee vnderſtoode of the Hearers, aſwell adding the expoſition thereof, as alſo exhortation, that the miniſter bee no lette, but that eueryevery man may perceiue that which is done there himſelfe. For why are all thoſe thinges ſayde, vnleſſe it bee that they may bee vnderſtoode of all the commers vntounto it: And why muſt they bee vnderſtood, vnleſſe beeing vnderſtoode they may be beleeued: For this cauſe the Apoſtle requireth that eueryevery one examine himſelfe.
191. Queſtion.
But in what thinges conſiſteth this ſame proouing of a mans ſelfe?
Anſweare.
Firſt in the knowledge of Chriſtiā doctrine, & eſpecially of this myſtery, then the full perſuaſion of faith, thirdly to be ſhort in true repentance.
192. Queſtion
But who hath theſe thinges,
Anſweare.
Whoſoeuer is truely a Chriſtian, foraſmuche as theſe are the effectes of the ſpirite of adoption. But it is one thing to hauehave theſe thinges truely; another too hauehave them in eueryevery thing perfect. Yea if theſe things were perfect in vsus, we ſhould neyther neede the worde nor the Sacramentes: ſeeyng that wee vſe them, too the ende that they beeyng begonne in vsus, might bee daylie encreaſed.
193. Queſtion.
I hauehave hearde what thou haſt ſaide ought to be done, aſwel of the Miniſter himſelfe, as of thoſe which come to the Lordes table. I aſke thee therefore, ſeeyng that the formall cauſe it ſelfe of the Sacramentes dependeth of the vſe of the inſtitution of our Lorde, if any fault bee in them whether for that cauſe, the making of the Sacrament be hindered.
Let vsus ſee this therfore by parts. The Benediction is principally put in the faythfull rehearſall of the inſtitution of the Lord, & as I may ſay in a certain applying of the ſame vntounto ye ſignes, moreouer in the expoſition thereof, adding exhortations and all other things, wherby eueryevery one may bee ſtirred vp to the vnderſtanding and lawfull vſe of theſe myſteries. Therefore the ouerpaſſing or rather peruerting of this inſtitution, doeth ſo corrupt the act, that it neither can nor ought to be deemed the Lordes Supper. But other thinges not doone ſo rightly (no, not if there be a falſe expoſition vſed) doe not yet corrupt the action, as which wholly dependeth vponupon the wil and inſtitution of the Lord.
194. Queſtion.
But what thinkeſt thou nowe of the breaking of the breade?
Anſweare.
I thinke that the ouerpaſſing of that, doth not corrupt the act it ſelfe, becauſe it pertayneth not too the verie making of the Sacrament, but onelyonly belongeth too the true and altogether lawfull vſe thereof: as a ſpotte in a fayre face doth indeede hurt the beauty, but yet notwithſtanding it doeth not vtterly aboliſh the forme it ſelfe.
195. Queſtion.
And what thinkeſt thou of the geuing of the Sacrament?
Anſweare.
Surely that the ouerpaſſing of the Sacrament it ſelfe doeth make, that that which was a Sacrament doeth ceaſe too hauehave the reaſon of a Sacrament, foraſmuche as the Sacraments were inſtituted to be vſed: like as waxe ſealed with a common ſeale doeth differ verie muche from priuate Waxe and not ſealed: but vnleſſe it bee applied vntounto an inſtrument it is accompted as priuate Waxe.
196. Queſtion.
What thinkeſt thou of taking, eating and drinking?
Anſweare.
Euen the very ſame.
197. Queſtion.
But what if there bee any faulte in the perſon of him that maketh the Sacrament?
Anſweare.
Surely this, that if hee bee a meere Priuate perſon the whole action is in vayne, as wee hauehave ſayde in Baptiſme, but if hee ſitte in the chayre of the Miniſterie, albeeit hee bee vnlawfully called, if hee keepe the inſtitution of the Lorde, wee muſt thinke otherwiſe, as before we hauehave aunſweared concerning Baptiſme For the reaſon is one and the like of both in this behalfe.
Queſtion.
What if hee teache falſely, or ouerflowe with vices, or thinketh or beleeueth nothing leſſe then that hee doeth, is it therefore no Sacrament?
Anſweare.
No, not ſo. Whatſoeuer the Sophiſters babble of the intention (as they ſpeake) of him that cōſecrateth. For the making and perfecting of the Sacrament dependeth wholly vponupon the inſtitution of God, by whatſoeuer Miniſter he doeth it.
198. Queſtion.
Doeſt thou thinke the like of their faulte, or of any vnwoorthineſſe of thoſe which do come vntounto the Lords Table?
Anſweare.
Yea altogether like. And by theſe it is eaſie to vnderſtande what corruptions hauehave bene brought into the Churche of God, ſubſtituting in the place of the true bleſſing, a magicall mumbling: in the place of geuing and receiuing, an oblation for the quicke and the dead: breaking of bread being altogether taken away, and geuing of thankes changed into that ſame horrible carriyng about and woorſhipping of a moſt prophane peece of bread, whereof we will ſpeake in their proper place.
199. Queſtion.
Therefore vnworthy Miniſters doe alſo miniſter the whole ſacrament.
Anſweare.
I graunt it.
Queſtion.
Therefore they alſo that come vnwoorthily, doe receyue the whole Sacrament, ſeeyng they receiue that that is miniſtred.
Anſweare.
I hauehave oftentimes greatly meruayled at the efficacie of the ſpirite of error in this playne Sophiſticall concluſion. But one errour hath brought foorth an other. For this beeing graunted, that both two, that is to ſay, aſwel the Elementes as the thing ſignified, that is, that Chriſt is geuen with his giftes to the bodie and too all, they hauehave concluded, that he that receiueth the Elements, receiueth alſo the thing. But this ground of theyrs is moſt falſe. For neyther the matter of the Sacrament (that is to ſay, Chriſt himſelfe) is offered to the handes and to the mouth, but to the minde and fayth, to wit too bee layde holde vppon ſpiritually as the bodily ſignes doe witneſſe to the outward ſenſes.
Queſtion.
What then doeſt thou determine concerning this matter?
Anſweare.
Forſooth, that the Elementes are receiued of al, but the thing ſignified onelie of the faithfull, albeit that both the Elementes and the things ſignified are miniſtred to all.