Christian Questions and Answers Part 2, Catechism · Question 233 – Question 235
232. Queſtion.
But the Supper of the Lorde hath a certaine proper and ſpeciall fourme which maketh that the ſame is not too bee thought of that, whiche is to bee thought of the other Sacraments.
Anſweare.
Albeit, that this ſpecially belong vntounto thoſe confutations which I woulde differ to their proper place, notwithſtanding that the force of the former argument may appeare more clearely, go too, let vsus 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 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 hauehave 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 makeſt this to be:
Queſtion.
One in the Subiect, an other in the attribute, the third in the very meanes of the attribution.
Anſweare.
And what in the Subiect?
Queſtion
Becauſe the Elements of the Supper of the Lorde, are diuers from the Element of Baptiſme.
Anſwere.
Be it ſo. But what in the Attribute?
Queſtion.
Becauſe the bodie and blood of our Lord, are the ſignified thinges of the Supper of the Lord.
Anſweare.
Thou art deceyued. For in Baptiſme alſo the blood of the Lorde is the thing ſignified. But what in the attribution?
Queſtion.
Becauſe onelyonly the Elements of the Lordes Supper are ſayde in the words of the inſtitution to be the very body and the very blood of our Lord.
Anſweare.
And what wylt thou conclude thereof?
Queſtion.
Forſooth that in Baptiſme, the very blood of Chriſt is not preſent and giuē, but onelyonly the fruit of the blood ſhead: but that in the Supper the body it ſelf, and the blood it ſelfe is preſent, and offered to the mouth it ſelfe.
Anſweare.
Whether theſe thinges are truely ſayde or no, we will ſee in theyr place. But I pray thee doeſt thou not marke that thou playeſt the Sophiſter?
Queſtion.
Why ſo?
Anſweare.
Becauſe thou chaungeſt the queſtions For wee did not demaund whether the matter of the Lordes Supper and of other Sacramentes were one and the ſame, but whether in another kynde of attribution that ſame matter of the Lordes Supper, (whether it bee onelyonly the fruite, or it be Chriſt himſelfe) be ſayde otherwyſe of the bread & wyne, then the matter whether it bee the ſame or another, is ſayde of other ſignes. Admit then that I graunt that which thou haſt ſayde, yet notwithſtanding there ſhall not bee diuers kindes of attributions, but alſo onelyonly diuers thinges ſhalbe attributed. And ſurely vnleſſe it were ſo, that is, if the thing ſignified were otherwiſe ſayde of the ſigne in the Supper of the Lorde, then in other Sacramentes and alſo in other types, they ſhould not be referred to the ſame kynd, for that ſame generall fourme ſhuld not be the eſſentiall fourme of all: euen lyke as if a liuing creature ſhoulde bee ſayde of a man in any other reſpect then of a horſe, a liuing creature ſhoulde not be the common genus or kynd of a man and a Horſe.
233. Queſtion.
Wilt thou therefore that there ſhal bee no ſpeciall fourme of the Lordes Supper?
Anſweare.
God forbid. But I ſaye that the ſpeciall fourme is partly in the proper Elementes and rytes, partly not in the attribute it ſelfe, but in the qualitie of that attribute: that is to ſay, becauſe Chriſte is the matter of both Sacraments, in Baptiſme verely he is ſet out to vsus, as the lauer and ſealing vp of our entraunce into the Churche; but in the Supper, as the heauenly nouriſhment of thoſe that are entred in.
234. Queſtion.
I meane this, that the very body of Chriſt & his very blood in very deede is preſent, in or vnderunder, or with that bread and that wyne in the Lordes Supper, but not ſo in the water of Baptiſme.
Anſweare.
Thou reſiſteſt therefore their doctrine, who teache that the humanitie of Chriſt alſo is eueryevery where preſent according to the very ſubſtaunce. But nowe let vsus leaue this. Doeſt thou not ſee that the queſtion is agayne chaunged of thee? For neyther dyd wee indeede ſeeke that whether the thing ſignified were preſent in the ſelfe ſame place where that breade and that wine was, or whether it were abſent: but this we demaunded in what kinde of attribution the thing ſignified eyther preſent or abſent might be ſaide of the ſigne properly or figuratiuely: and whether it might be ſaid in an other kinde of attribution of the elemēts of the Lords ſupper then of the elementes of other Sacraments. The queſtion therfore of preſēce or abſēce maketh nothing to ye matter, neither cā by any maner of meanes bring to paſſe, that that which is, or is giuen, in, vnderunder, or with ſomewhat, eyther preſent or abſent, ſhoulde there fore be ſayde properly too bee that verye thing, in, vnderunder, or with which it is.