Christian Questions and Answers Part 2, Catechism · Question 42 – Question 73
41. Queſtion.
Theſe thinges being expounded, I woulde gladly learne of thee, what the knitting together of the ſignes & the thinges ſignified is. For thou art not ignorant, that this controuerſie is ſpecially handled nowadaies: Whether the body and blood of the Lord be really preſent yea or no, that is, in the ſame place where that bread and that wine is, or whether the ſignes remain as ſome think, or be aboliſhed, the accidēts onelyonly remaining, as they teache, which conſent with the Pope.
Anſweare.
This controuerſy is growen ſo whot and come ſo farre, that for the deciding thereof, we neede rather conſcience then knowledge; but the Lorde alone either by ſome wonderfull iudgement, or ſome notable example of his merciemercy will decide it: notwithſtanding I will endeuour too make it playne when I ſhall come too ſpeake of the Lordes Supper. Now that I may anſweare to that which is demanded, I ſay, that foraſmuche as the thinges ſignified both in the ſimple woorde and in the Sacramentes be partly things not ſubſiſting or ſtanding by themſelues, as the forgiueneſſe of ſinnes, the gift of ſanctification, the encreaſe of faith, incorporation into Chriſt, and ſuche like: that the queſtiō of the real preſence of the things ſignified muſt neceſſarily bee reſtrayned to ſome real beyng. Now as I ſuppoſe, no other can bee put but Chriſte himſelfe. And when they with whom wee agree not, concerning this matter, doe not themſelues (as I ſuppoſe think that Chriſt ſhould bee deuided, as thoſe that complaine (notwithſtanding vndeſeruedly that the ſame is done of vsus: becauſe that we denie the reall preſence of Chriſtes bodie: Doeſt thou thinke that the ſtate of this queſtion is ſo too bee taken. Whether Chriſte GOD and man bee preſent in thoſe places themſelues, where the Sacramentes are miniſtred:
Queſtion.
So I hauehave read in ſome of theyr wrytinges, who notwithſtanding affirme this not generally of all Sacramentes, but onelyonly of the Lordes Supper.
Anſweare.
I woulde not doubte too affirme the ſame both of the ſupper of the Lord, and of Baptiſme, and alſo after a certayne manner of thoſe Sacramentes, which were before the comming of Chriſt into the Earth: neither woulde I think my ſelfe a Chriſtian, if I ſhould denie this.
42. Queſtion
I am glad that we agree amongeſt our ſelues.
Anſwere.
God graunt, that at length, we may agree. Therfore heare, I pray thee: It cannot be denied, but that Chriſt according too his Godhead is eueryevery where. This likewiſe is without all controuerſie, that foraſmuch as mans nature is ſo taken of the Woorde, that GOD and Man are one reall beeyng, it muſt needes followe if thou conſider Chriſte as ſome one, and ſingular thing, that whole Chriſt is alſo eueryevery where preſent: and yet not as in the Sacramentes in which vndoubtedly there muſt be appoynted ſome peculiar and ſpecial manner of preſence, as I may ſo ſpeak, that they may be diſtinguiſhed from other common thinges, in which alſo hee is preſent.
The other thing that I would hauehave wel weighed of thee, is this: that which is ſpoken of the whole is not yet ſpoken of the ſingular parts, being amōgſt themſelues of a diuerſe kinde. As for example. All the whole that we call man, we define to be partaker of reaſō, which yet thou wilte not ſay, of no eſſentiall parte of man conſidered in it ſelfe. And yet there is ſomewhat in this definition, too witte, reaſon, which is attributed to that other parte of man, euen to the ſoule.
Doeſt thou not ſee then that whole Chriſt, that is, Chriſt conſidered as a certaine whole and abſolute thing, is another thing then all belonging to Chriſt, that is Chriſt whō thou ſhalt way particularly by his partes. For in this caſe let it be lawful for me, to atttribute alſo the name of a part to the Godhead.
43. Queſtion.
I ſee it very well, but is there any more.
Anſweare.
Yea, I woulde hauehave this farther to be marked of thee, that certain thinges doo ſo fitly ſerue for the eſtabliſhing of ſome ſinguler thing, that that which by no meanes can agree by it ſelfe to ſome one, may yet be attributed vntoo it, as it cleaueth & is conioyned with another: the which thing is ſo farre foorth true, that it may alſo be ſayde of thoſe which yet but accidentally, onelyonly and for a time are ioyned together: as for example, when a King is crowned and is honored in his robes, the crowne and his robes are alſo reuerenced, but yet in reſpect of another thing, to witte, of his kingly dignitie, wherof they are ornamentes, not in reſpect of them ſelues. For heereby it plainely appeareth, that the honour and reuerence is not referred too thoſe things, becauſe when, the king hath put them off, no man can endure to reuerēce them, vnleſſe he bee out of his wits, but they are reuerenced for another, to wit for the Kinges ſake of whom they are worne. Neither euer doth the crown or robes grow vp into one real being with the king. Much more therefore ſhall ſome thing be ſaid in reſpect of another which is ioyned perſonally with another, which yet can by no meanes in reſpect of it ſelfe be attributed vntounto it. So there is attributed to the worde taking mans nature, that which is peculiar to mans nature as when it is ſayd, that God ſuffered: as alſo to maas nature,Actes. 20. 28. that which is peculiar to the woorde taking vponupon it mans nature, as when in mās nature at what time he talked with Nichodemus in the earth, he ſayd thatIohn. 3. 13. he was in heauen.
Queſtion.
Theſe thinges thou haſt handled before. But thou diddeſt adde that this was ſpoken, of certaine diſtinct woordes, to witte of God and man. But of the abſtract, to witte of the Godhead and manhoode not ſo.
Anſweare.
Vnleſſe this be ſo, the confuſion of the naturall proprieties of eyther nature muſt needes follow, which are ſignified by thoſe abſtract woordes. Therfore we ſay rightly and godlyly that God was crucified and dead, but it were vngodly & wicked to ſay that the Godhead were crucified or deade. Notwithſtanding it ſeemeth to me that this alſo after a certeine ſorte may bee graunted without any damage of the faith to bee ſayd of the abſtract themſelues, ſo that alwayes we adde expreſly, that it is not ſpokē in reſpect of thēſelues, but for an other, that ſo the cōcrete may be vnderſtood by ye abſtract to be ſo determined.
44. Queſtion.
Say therefore at the length, whether Chriſt him ſelfe according to his humaine nature, bee preſent in verie deede, and in his owne ſubſtance, whereſoeuer chriſtian Churches doo adminiſter the Sacraments.
Anſweare.
I ſay therefore that whole Chriſt, that is, if he be conſidered as a certaine whole and one thing conſiſting of two natures to be preſent truely and indeed not onelyonly in the ſacraments, but alſo in all things. Notwithſtanding I deny that it followeth herevpon, that his humaine nature conſidered in it ſelfe, is any where elſe thon aboue, ſo far is it of ye he can be preſent at one time by his ſubſtance in many places, or euerie where. And yet againe I graunt that if this humaine nature be conſidered, not in it ſelfe, that is not in reſpect of it ſelfe. but of another, that is if it be ſo conſidered as it is one reall being with the woorde of whom it is taken, that it is as preſent euerie where as the word it ſelfe, from which it cannot be drawen not becauſe the ſelfeſame nature is preſēt but becauſe it is ioyned with ye word which euerie where is preſent.
45. Queſtion.
Concerning what matter therfore is the cōtrouerſie betwixt you & thē?
Anſweare.
Concerning this, that aſwell they which defend tranſubſtantiatiō, as they that defend conſubſtantiation, will hauehave the humaine nature it ſelfe, at one time to be both aboue and beneath, now wee teach that it is onelyonly aboue: neither doo we therfore diuide the perſon.
46. Queſtion.
But doo they place that preſence ſimplie in all things, or in the ſacraments onelyonly?
Anſweare.
Such as will hauehave Chriſt preſent in all places at once, will hauehave him in all things, in ſo much as they will not hauehave Chriſt as Chriſt in reſpect of his ſubſtance to be otherwiſe in, vnderunder, or with the breade then in al other things: and that by the power of the perſonall vnion, which they determine by the real effuſion and pouring foorth of all the vertues of the Godhead into that fleſhe taken: in which ſenſe they interpret alſo the aſſention of Chriſt into heauen, and his ſitting at the right hand of god. But certain others do ſo teach this reall preſence of Chriſtes fleſh to the people, that they them ſelues thinke that Chriſts fleſh hath obteined this of the Godhead, to which it is ioyned that it may be in verie deede in many places at tonce as it will, the trueth thereof remaining ſafe and ſound, but that it appeareth the plaine words of the inſtitution of the Supper that Chriſt woulde hauehave his fleſhe preſent there indeede: whervpon it ſhould follow that this preſence ſhould eſpecially be eſtabliſhed in the Sacrament of the Supper, other concerning the matter it ſelfe think the ſame thing: but they fetch this preſence from the wordes themſelues of the Inſtitution, adioyning his ſitting at the right hand of the father, omitting that ſame power of the perſonall vnion. To conclude the popiſh Tranſubſtantiatours condemning that hold vbiquitie, place this reall preſence in the alone ſacrament of the Aultar (as they ſpeake) ſticking in a woorking power of certaine words and omnipotencie of God.
Queſtion.
And what thinkeſt thou of theſe?
Anſweare.
I thinke that all theſe opinions offende in this, that either they will not or know not to diſtinguiſh betwixt a thing in reſpect of another, & in reſpect of it ſelfe, which ignoraunce vexed the Church, ſo many yeeres by the Neſtorians, Eutichians and Monathelites. And further I ſay, that there is a ſhame full errour committed in this, that they drawe thoſe thinges to a Sacramentall preſence, which belong too an vniuerſal preſence and common to all thinges.
47. Queſtion
Thinkeſt thou therefore that thoſe thinges which thou haſt ſpoken of the preſence of Chriſtes fleſhe in reſpect of another, to belong vntoo al thinges?
Anſweare.
Yea altogether. For otherwiſe thou ſhouldeſt determine the Godhead of the Worde, to be ſomewhere abſent, and therefore not to bee the Godhead. Notwithſtanding it is a ſpeech leſſe hearde in the Concrete if thou ſhouldeſt ſay, that Chriſt, euen man, rather, then the fleſh of Chriſt, is eueryevery where in reſpect of another. For that ſame man is alſo God, notwithſtanding not in himſelfe, but in reſpect of the other nature, too witte, the Worde. But the humaine nature of Chriſt is not the Godhead, neither in it ſelf, nor in reſpect of the word: but if it can be ſaid too bee eueryevery where, therefore it is only ſaid, becauſe it is one reall beyng with the woorde and ſo ſubſiſteth in the ſame Worde eueryevery where preſent.
48. Queſtion.
What therefore is the Sacramētall coniunction of the ſigne, & of Chriſt himſelfe?
Anſweare.
That which agreeth to the nature of the Sacramentes, and too their ende. Nowe we hauehave declared the nature of the Sacramentes to be ſuch, that by the ſignes offring themſelues too our outwarde ſenſes, our mindes in a cértaine proportion might be carried firſt indeed to beholde the thinges ſignified, and afterwardes vntounto thoſe thinges which are therefore ſet before vsus to bee looked vppon, that they may be apprehended and through fayth by the power of the holy Ghoſt, bee more and more applyed vntounto our mindes.
49. Queſtion.
To bee ſhort, then what maner of preſence is this?
Anſweare.
Certaynly not that which reſpecteth ſituation of place, but that which is altogether reſpectiue, or rather of relation and belonging too another. For a Sacrament is in that predicament, which the Logicians call relation.
Queſtion.
I woulde gladly hauehave this made more eaſie vntounto mee.
Anſweare.
I will doe it, if I can, but I woulde that now for a while the perſons beyng changed, that my ſelfe ſhoulde take the partes of aſking & thou of anſwearing. Be not words the notes of thoſe things that we woulde hauehave ſignified in eueryevery tongue to the mindes of the hearers by certaine ſoundes?
Queſtion.
Yes verely.
Anſweare.
What if I ſhoulde contend, that eueryevery thing whereof I ſhoulde ſpeake muſt be preſent in very deede?
Queſtion.
Surely that ſhould ſeeme vntounto me very fooliſh, ſeing we may ſpeake alſo of things paſt and of things to come, yea of thinges which neuer were, are not yet, or perhaps neuer ſhalbe.
Anſweare.
Notwithſtanding of whatſoeuer thing I ſhall ſpeake, I ſhall repreſent the ſame by my wordes vntounto thy minde.
Queſtion.
It is ſo.
Anſweare.
Thinges therefore are ſignified by thoſe voyces, wherby they are ſignified not by a naturall ſituation, and too bee ſhort not by their own ſubſtance, but by a certaine reſpect or phraſe of ſpeeche & habite of wordes added, ſo farre foorth as they ſettle them as it were in the vnderſtanding of the hearers.
50. Queſtion
I pray thee declare this vntounto mee more plainly.
Anſweare.
Knowe thou that the copulation of the Sacramentes, and of the thinges ſignified by the Sacramentes are altogether like. For as Auguſtine ſayde very wittely: The Sacramentes are as it were ſome viſible woorde, as that which the wordes ſounde too the eares, the ſame they ſhew to the eyes. Therefore they queſtion moſt fondly heere of the reall preſence, ſeeyng that reall preſence (or rather of the matter and ſubſtance it ſelfe) in a certaine place, & the Sacramentall preſence are not indeede continually repugnaunt and contrary: but yet notwithſtanding they ſo farre foorth differ betwirte themſelues, that that alſo which in very deede yet is not, yet is ſacramentally preſent: whereto Paule hauing regarde, he ſayeth that the Fathers did eate the ſame meate,1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. and drinke the ſame drinke, too witte, Chriſt. And it is ſo farre off, that this Sacramentall knitting ſhoulde bee in vayne, that contrariwiſe as we ſhall ſay in his place, it is more effectual thē any naturall copulation.
51. Queſtion.
But who maketh this mutuall or reſpectiue copulation?
Anſweare.
The will of God declared, in the word of inſtitution.
Queſtion.
Wilt thou therefore that wee entreate of conſecration?
Anſweare.
I woulde rather for certayne ſpecial cauſes, referre all this to the treatiſe of the Lordes Supper.
52. Queſtion.
Doe they not therefore make fruſtrate the ſignes, whoſoeuer teache that the thing ſignified, is abſent frō his ſubſtance?
Anſweare.
Surely they do not make them void, vnleſſe we ſay that they are vain words whereby we doe no leſſe ingraue in the mindes of the hearers, thinges abſent then things preſent.
Queſtion.
Who then make them voyd?
Anſweare.
They that teach, that the Sacramēts are only bare memorials of things paſtor badges of Chriſtian mutuall felow, ſhippe, or that the thinges which are ſignified by them are not truely offred, to be layde holde vponupon with the inſtrument of Fayth, as it were by the hande.
53. Queſtion
Now I would thou ſhouldeſt declare vntounto me, what manner of partaking that is, both of the ſigne, & of the thing ſignified.
Anſweare.
I ſuppoſe thou canſt not doubt of the firſt parte of this queſtion. For ſeeing the ſignes are bodily thinges, they are alſo naturally receiued by the inſtruments of the body of all that come thereto.
54. Queſtion.
Let vsus therefore ſpeake of that other parte of this queſtion, that is, of the partaking of the thing ſignified.
Anſweare.
We hauehave ſhewed that Chriſte himſelfe with his giftes is the thing ſignified, of which giftes ſome of them are made ours by imputation, but the others are wrought in vsus and cleane too vsus. I ſay therefore that theſe, ſeeing they are meere qualities as they are offered to the mindes onelyonly, ſo they are layde holde of by the onelyonly inſtrument of the minde, yet indued with fayth, which is the onelyonly hande of the mind to embrace the promiſes of GOD. This whole partaking therfore is eueryevery maner of way ſpirituall. For that, whereof we are partakers, is of a ſpirituall nature, and is wrought by a ſpirituall inſtrument, yea and the whole action of this inſtrument is ſpirituall.
55. Queſtion.
But thou canſt not ſay the ſame of Chriſt, as who is not being a qualitie according to either nature or any ſuch like thing.
Anſweare.
Yea, but firſt of all, concerning the very perſon of the woorde, I ſuppoſe that it were a verie wicked thing, too thinke that we could be partakers of it, otherwiſe then by vertue and operation. For otherwiſe wee alſo ſhoulde become Gods by nature: and ſo that place. 2. Pet. 1. ver. 4. is to be expoūded, and all ſuche other like places, as all Interpreters of anie name or credite agree.
Queſtion.
I agree to it, and I deteſt that dotage of the Manichees renewed by Seruetus, thinking God to be ſo preſent in all thinges, that hee is alſo a parte of them. But what ſayeſt thou of the humane nature of Chriſt?
Anſweare.
Neyther doeſt thou as I ſuppoſe, thinke the ſubſtaunce thereof in very deede too bee ioyned with our Soule. For what is more fooliſhe then this ſouldering and ſealing together of mindes? But thou wilte not ſaye that the ſubſtaunce of the Soule can be layde holde vppon by any Organe or Inſtrument of the bodie.
56. Queſtion.
But what? ſhal we thinke the ſame of the very bodie of Chriſt?
Anſweare.
I graunt, that bodily thinges may bee participated by bodily ſenſes, but I vtterly reiecte that reall, touching and cleauing together of the bodie of Chriſte with our bodies, as a Monſter, then which nothing can bee faigned more falſe and leſſe fitte, for the ende of the Sacramentes, pretende they what they wil, for the maintenance of this dotage.
Queſtion.
Therfore ſay why thou calleſt that falſe?
Anſweare.
Becauſe nowe it can by no meanes bee made too agree with the trueth of the limited fleſhe of Chriſte, and it is altogether contrary to the whole hiſtorie of the Goſpell, as I ſhall ſhewe in his place.
Queſtion.
And why ſerueth it not for the end of the Sacramentes?
Anſweare.
Becauſe the whole Sacramentall Action is wholly referred too euerlaſting life, and therefore it muſt needs bee that this partaking muſt bee wrought by the mynde and by Fayth, and not by the Inſtrument of the bodie: Wherefore alſo as the outward ſignes are ſette foorth too the outwarde ſenſes, ſo the thing ſignified is ſet foorth to our vnderſtanding and faith.
57. Queſtion.
But if thou take away the partaking of the ſubſtaunce it ſelfe, then in ſteade of the bodie and ſoule of Chriſte, or in ſteede of Chriſt himſelfe, thou onelyonly placeſt the vertue of him.
Anſweare.
Yea but I doo not take away that ſame partaking of Chriſt him ſelfe. For euen like as the bodie is nouriſhed with meate in this life, and that muſt firſt be taken in verie deede: ſo alſo I determine (which alſo I hauehave ſayde before) that wee muſte partake of Chriſt him ſelfe, ſo, as we muſt bee made one wt him in very deed, that that ſame liuely iuyce may be deriued out of him into vsus. For he neyther ſaide, This is my merite: or this is the fruite of my paſſion: but this is my bodye: Neyther ſaid Paule, that we were only baptiſed into the death of Chriſt, but that we alſo did put on Chriſt: or that the bread wc Rom. 6. 34. 2. Cor. 10. 16.we breake was the partaking of his benifites, but the partaking of his body. Therefore that I may returne to the matter, I doo not take away the body it ſelfe, that I may place the vertue therof inſteed of the thing ſignified: now that which is ſignified by the ſacramēts that very ſelf ſame thing is giuen to the ende we ſhould be partakers thereof in very deede, neither doo I denie, that we are partakers of Chriſt, indeede. But I affirme this partaking or laying hold of or application or communicating to be meere ſpirituall and myſticall.
58. Queſtion.
Why doeſt thou call it ſpirituall?
Anſwere.
Firſt that I may ſhut out, all touching of the bodie of Chriſt with our bodie, all locall coherence and exiſting together, and to cōclude that mōſtruous opiniō of eating wt the mouth as meere Cyclopicall (howſoeuer it bee excuſed with other no leſſe fained deuiſes of not beingſeen & being without place. Next, becauſe this pertaking in reſpect of vsus is wrough by the onelyonly hand and mouth of the minde and of faith. For this is the meate, as Auguſtine hath verie wel ſayd, not of the belly but of the minde.
59. Queſtion
But why doeſt thou call it myſticall.
Anſweare.
That I may teach that this knitting together, wherby we are made fleſhe of his fleſh and bones of his bones, to witte by a certaine ſpirituall mariage dooth depend of the only power of the almightie ſpirt altogether ſecret and incomprehenſible to vsus, which alſo knitteth nearely together things moſt farre aſunder.Ephe. 5. 30. 32. Therein following the ſtepps of the Apoſtle, who cryeth out that this is a great miſery.
60. Queſtion.
And why alſo calleſt thou that communicating [an vniting & knitting togeather?
Anſweare.
Becauſe the whole Scripture witneſſeth that we muſt be made one with Chriſt, that we muſt be incorporated into Chriſt, & beknit to him as mēbers to the heade, ſo that he may liue in vsus, and we in him. Now this connexion wee affirme to bee not onelyonly of a certaine conſent, as when Luke writethActes. 24. 31 that the heartes and ſoules of the beleeuers was one: but alſo natural, or as Cyril hath very wel writtē, that ſo muſt be vnderſtood the communion of Chriſt himſelfe.
61. Queſtion.
Canſt thou ſhadow out vntounto mee after ſome ſort, by ſome fitte ſimilitude this myſterie otherwiſe incomprehenſible?
Anſweare.
Yes verily that I can, euen out of the ſame ſimilitude of the head and members ſo vſual with the Apoſtle. I beſech thee therefore whēce hauehave theſe armes their naturall ſenſe and moouing? Surely euen from the heade to which they are knit after a naturall manner, as it were by ioyutes ſinewes and artiries which otherwiſe ſhoulde become deuoyd of all motion and feeling. Now imagine with thy ſelfe that euen as boxes of ſweet ſmelling oyntment doe euen pierce things verie farre of, and the ſecreteMagnes is a ſtone, that hathe the propertie to draw yron vntounto it. force of the Magnes preuayleth againſt yron, though it be remoued far frō it, ſo is there ſo much liuely ſtrength in this my heade, that although it were at Conſtantinople, and one of myne armes in India, and another in Spaine, yet notwithſtanding, by the help of theſe ſame fitte and conueniēt ioyntes, it is able to giuegive them life: imagine I ſaye ſome ſuch thing with thy ſelfe and thou ſhalt hauehave the lyuely Image of this our incorporation into Chriſte. For Chriſt him ſelfe according too the fleſhe neyther nowe placed any other where then aboue theſe heauens intoo which hee hath aſcended according to the fleſhe, by a phyſicall and naturall moouing, neyther ſhall come agayne from thence, before that ſame laſt day doth ſo truely and effectually knyt, couple and ingreffe into him ſelf al beleeuers placed here in this earth by that ſame diuine power of his woorking in ye matter which is hindered by no diſtāce of place ye afterwards out of his fleſh in which life it ſelf dwelleth bodily, and which hath not receiued the ſpirite by meaſure, that ſame liuely iuice might flowe into vsus beleeuing in him.
62. Queſtion.
Therefore there is no neede either of any locall motion, or touching, or to be ſhort of any placing of the humaine nature of Chriſt in the earth, for this knitting of vsus the members, vntounto our heade Chriſt: neither doth this ſame communicating of Chriſt himſelf, tend to this, that ther ſhould bee a commixture and mingling of ſubſtances, but that out of Chriſt himſelfe, ſpiritually, ſo ioyned vntounto vsus that ſame quickning power of his ſhould flow into vsus.
Anſweare.
Fye, away I ſay with al thoſe falſe and fooliſh tryfles.
63. Queſtion.
But why doeſt thou rather make mentiō of the fleſh then of the Godheade in this coniunction or knitting togeather?
Anſweare.
I doo not this, as though the God. head did nothing here, when as contrawiſe in very deede, the very fleſhe of Chriſt ſimply and conſidered in it ſelfe as it is fleſhe, dooth not quicken vsus, but becauſe as the Fathers very wittily ſpeake, it is the fleſh of the woord. But in this I follow Chriſt the Maiſter, expreſly repeating the names of his fleſhe and bloode in this myſterie of our coniunction with him, becauſe we cannot be ioyned with him, but by reaſon of his humaine nature, and in aſmuch as he is our brother.
64. Queſtion.
But like as thou ſayſt, that this meat is receiued of vsus onelyonly by the mynde endued with fayth, ſhall we likewyſe thinke, that the fruite of this vnion dooth onelye belong vntounto the minde?
Anſweare.
No not ſo. For Chriſt beyng layde hold vponupon of vsus by faith in this life, doth beſtowe vponupon vsus all good benefites aſwell of the bodie as of the minde as many and aſmuch as we hauehave neede of, and at the length will alſo giuegive vntounto vsus wholy euerlaſting life.
65. Queſtion.
But doeſt thou reſtrayne this our vniting with Chriſt, to the only myſtery of the Lordes ſupper, as ſome do?
Anſweare.
Be it farre from vsus. For both in the ſimple woorde, and alſo in eyther Sacrament, albeit in an vnlike proportion neyther equall effect (vnleſſe our vnbeliefe doe let it) whole Chriſt is offered vntounto vsus too bee layde holde vponupon, ſpiritually by faith, ſo farre is it off that wee ſhutte Chriſt out of the Lords Supper, as diuers doe ſclaunder vsus.
66. Queſtion.
Doeſt thou thinke then that there is no difference betwixt that dayly partaking of Chriſt through fayth, and that which is made in the Lordes ſupper?
Anſweare
Yea, I thinke that there is greate difference, vnleſſe vnbeliefe let it, betwixt that which I call meere ſpirituall, & that wc is ſayd to be ſacramentall and yet notwithſtanding not concerning the thing it ſelfe, neyther in reſpect of the inſtrument of fayth, but in this, becauſe there onelyonly by the woorde, but here alſo by viſible ſignes our fayth is admoniſhed, and the thing ſignified is ſealed. Moreouer this partaking excelleth the woorde in this, that the ſimple worde for the moſt part is vniuerſally ſette foorth vntoo the people, but the Sacramentes are giuen vntoo euerie ſingular perſon, as it were by the hande of GOD himſelfe, which thing dooth woonderfully profit vntounto that ſame particular and full perſwaſion that ought to be in eueryevery one.
67. Queſtion 67. Queſtion.
But doeſt thou thinke that Chriſte in like ſort was ſet foorth vntounto our olde fathers, before his comming into the fleſhe, and all his benefites aſwell in the ſimple worde, as in the types and Sacramentes ioyned to the worde, alſo to bee apprehended and layde holde off by fayth?
Anſweare.
I am altogether perſuaded ſo, for the ſelf ſame Chriſt, yea the ſame whole Chriſt, both in his audible worde and alſo in his viſible wordes, that is to ſay in the Sacraments, is ſet foorth to the ſelfe ſame ende.
68. Queſtion.
I had almoſt quite forgotten that which I woulde gladly hauehave asked of thee, to wyt, howe it is that Sainct Auguſtine writeth, as thou haſt cyted, that the Sacramentes can worke no ſuche aſtoniſhment as miraculous thinges doe, if that ſame myſtery of the vniting of Chriſt and his Church together be ſo wonderfull.
Anſweare.
I hauehave anſwered vntounto that alreadie, that it is one thing to aſke of the Sacramentes themſelues, another thing of thoſe thinges which God doth worke by the vſe of them. Auguſtine therefore doeth very well forbyd, whether we reſpect the nature of the Sacramentes or the Sacramentes them ſelues, that they ſhould bee numbred amongeſt miracles, becauſe it is not ſtraunge, neyther alſo againſt the order of naturall thinges, that ſome thing for the analogie and proportion, and alſo by the couenaunt of men ſhoulde bee vſed for the ſignifying of ſome thing altogether differing from the nature thereof. For I beſeeche thee, what miracle is it that the betrothing of maryage to come, ſhoulde be ſignified by a Ryng: and putting into poſſeſſion of houſes, ſhould not onelyonly be ſignified by the deliuering of a Keye, but alſo confirmed? There is the lyke reaſon altogether to bee had of the Sacramentes, although not particularly yet generally, albeit thoſe thinges which God worketh in vsus (if wee rightly vſe the Sacramences) doe exceede the vnderſtandyng euen of the very Angels them ſelues.
69. Queſtion.
But that which thou haſt ſpoken of our Sacramentes, doeſt thou alſo thinke of thoſe ſame olde Sacraments?
Anſweare.
I ſay both twayne in thoſe thinges which are as I may ſay of the ſubſtāce of the Sacrament it ſelfe, doe altogether agree, but they differ in certaine circumſtances.
70. Queſtion.
Shewe me therefore how they doe agree
Anſweare.
Firſt of all they agree in the efficient cauſe. For Chriſt our onelyonly lawgiuer appoynted both theſe and them: further they agree in the inwarde thing it ſelfe. For Chriſte was that ſame tree of lyfe in Paradiſe, that ſame Lambe ſlayne from the beginnyng of the worlde, that ſame Paſchall of the Fathers, takyng away the ſinnes of the worlde, that ſame ſpirituall Rocke, that ſame meate and drynke of the Fathers, which thyng alſo is to be thought of thoſe ſame types and figures, and to bee ſhort, of all the olde Sacraments. For very ryghtly and truelye ſayeth Auguſtine in the ſix and twentie Treatiſe vppon Iohn, that the Sacraments of the Fathers in reſpect of the ſignes, were diuers from oures, but concernyng the ſignification they were alyke. They agree alſo in the worde concernyng the ſubſtaunce, albeit the voyces be not the ſame. For there is ſignified in the worde of inſtitution, that Chriſt and his gifts are offered vntounto vsus in either, to ye Fathers as to come, but to vsus wc come already: moreouer in both two there is found the ſelfe ſame inſtrument of applying him, and the ſame Fayth in diuerſe ſignes, as the ſame Auguſtine ſaith in his 45. treatiſe vponupon Iohn. Alſo the ſelfe ſame end and effect is in both of them. For Circumciſion was both the ſigne and the ſeale of righteouſnes by faith. Rom. 4. 11. And the Fathers were circumciſed in Chriſte with the circumciſion of the heart made without handes. Col. 2. 7.
71. Queſtion
But in what thinges differ they?
Anſwere.
Firſte they differ in the ſignes (by which I vnderſtande the Sacramentall rytes them ſelues) which we hauehave more ſpiritual & fewer & leſſe laborſome, further in the playneſſe of the word, which in ours is much more clearer: whervpō alſo groweth another difference in the very meaſure of the efficacy and operation it ſelfe. For the more playne and manifeſt the woorde is, the more ought wee to be moued, and therfore the more effectual ought our faith to be. Wherto alſo belong the woordes of the ſelfſame Auguſtine, that our Sacrament are fewer, eaſier, more ſignificant, and more full of Maieſtie: to which alſo that may bee added, that theſe differ in this, becauſe they were inſtituted onelyonly vntill the comming of Chriſte: but ours ſhall take no end but with the worlde.
72. Queſtion
If it bee ſo as thou ſayeſt, it appeareth vntounto me that the ſtate of the Fathers was mightier in twoo greate thinges then ours: Firſt becauſe they had more, then becauſe they had more ſignificant helpes of faith, then wee.
Anſweare.
But I pray thee, whethers weakeneſſe of the bodie wouldeſt thou iudge to be greater, his that hath need of two ſtaies to vphold his going, or his which leaning vponupon one ſtaffe, doth eaſily goe anie whither?
Queſtion.
Surely I woulde thinke him twofolde weaker then the other.
Anſweare.
Euen ſo perſwade thy ſelfe of the eſtate and condition of thoſe fathers. For the multitude of Sacraments, ſheweth not that theyr condition was the better, but contrariwiſe that it was worſe. For neither ſhould our faith, if it were ſtrong ynough of it ſelfe, neede the Sacramentes.