A Christian Instruction Containing the Law and the Gospel, Exposition 1 · Dialogue 16
The ſixtenth Dialogue is of the tranſubſtātiation & cō ſubſtantiation, and of the true preſence of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper.
Of the error of tranſubſtantiation, and hovv the Supper cannot be a Sacramente, if the bread and the vvine do not there remayne in their proper ſubſtance.
MATHEVV.
HOw is it that men do eate the fleſh of Ieſus Chriſt, and do drinke his bloud, as thou haſt euen nowe ſaide? It is to bée vnderſtoode that the breade and the wine be tranſubſtantiate and conuerted into them, or elſe that they be ioyned and vnited with the bread and the wine.
P.
For the firſte, there is no reaſon eyther to thinke or ſaye, that the breade and the wine be conuerted or chaunged into the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſte.
M.
For what cauſe.
P.
Bycauſe that if the bread & the wine did not remayne ſtill in the ſupper, bread and wine, in their proper ſubſtance, they ſhoulde not be the ſignes of the body & of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſte, but if they were conuerted into the ſame, they ſhoulde be the ſelfe ſame thing, the which they oughte to ſignifie and repreſente vntounto vsus.
M.
What inconueniente ſhould there be in that?
P.
There ſhoulde be this inconuenient in it, that the ſupper ſhould be a Sacramente withoute ſigne, and ſo ſhoulde it hauehave no Sacramentall ſigne, without the which the Sacramēts may not be Sacraments.
Of things vvithout the vvhichwhich the ſacraments cannot be ſacramēts.
M.
HOwe vnderſtandeſt thou that?
P.
Thou muſt note that a Sacramente, cannot be a Sacramente excepte it hauehave at the leaſte thrée things, whiche are of the proper ſubſtance of all Sacramens.
M.
Whiche are theſe thrée things?
P.
The firſte is the worde of God, which is the foundation of all the Sacraments.
M.
And the ſeconde?
P.
The viſible and materiall ſignes ſuch as God hath ordeyned by that very word.
M.
And the third?
P.
The thinges ſignified aſwell by that word as by the ſignes.
Of things vvhichwhich are to be conſidered in the vvord of God in all Sacraments, and in the ſignification of the ſame.
M.
DEclare vntounto me that whiche thou ſayeſt by ſome ſimilitude.
P.
Séeing that we be vppon the matter of the Supper, thou haſt firſte the worde of Ieſus Chriſt, in the which thou haſt to note two pointes.
M.
Whiche be they?
P.
The firſt is the commandement which Ieſus Chriſte there giueth, to take and to eate the bread, & to drinke the wine, which are giuen in the ſame.
M.
Which is ye ſecōd?
P.
The promiſe, whereby he declareth what it is that this bread and wine do ſignifie, and for what cauſe he hath ordeyned and commaunded to receiue them, and what frute we muſt looke for of them.
Math.
Wherevpon takeſt thou thys promiſe?Matth. 26. e. Marke. 14. Luke. 22. b. 1. Cor. 11. e. f.
Pe.
Vppon that whiche is ſaide of the breade. This ſame is my bodye whiche is broken for you: and in like ſorte vppon that whiche is ſpoken of the wyne. Thys cuppe is my bloude, or the newe Teſtamente in my bloude, whiche is ſhedde for you: doe this in remembraunce of mée.
Math.
Muſte wée vnderſtande the lyke of all the other Sacramentes, to witte, that they hauehave commandemēt and promiſſe from God?
Peter.
There is no doubte thereof.
Ma.
What is there more yet to cōſider cōcernyng the worde of GOD?
P.
There is nothing more to be conſydered concerning that ſame exteriour worde, whyche is pronounced by the mouth of the myniſters.
Math.
What reſteth there yet more?
Peter.
That which is ſignified by the woorde, the whiche doth alſo declare the ſignification of the ſignes, how God doth accompliſhe by effect that which is ſignified as well by the worde, as by the ſignes.
Of things to conſider in the ſignes, and in the ſignification of them, in all Sacramentes.
M.
WHat haſt thou yet to ſaye of the ſygnes, and of their ſignification?
Peter.
Thou ſéeſt how that Ieſus Chryſt was not contented with the wordes only in the Supper, but he added alſo therevnto the ſignes of the breade and of the wine, as is that of the water in baptiſme.
M.
I demaund thée nothing of their ſignification. For thou haſt alredy declared it vntounto me.
P.
Thou haſt only to note that theſe ſignes are not true ſignes without the things ſignified by them.
VVhether Hipocrites and Infidells do as vvell communicate in the Supper, of the things ſignified by the ſignes as they do of the ſignes.
M.
IF it be ſo that ye ſignes be not vaine neyther in the ſupper nor yet in the other Sacraments, without hauing with them the things which they ſignifie, it thē followeth that whoſoeuer receyueth the ſignes receyueth alſo the things ſignified by them, and by that meane the infidells which are hypocrits, do no leſſe part take of the whole Sacramente than do the faithfull.
P.
Thou concludeſt not well. For when I ſay that the ſignes are not in the Sacraments, without the thinges by them ſignified, thou muſt vnderſtād that on God his parte, for he dothe not ſette foorth his worde and ſacraments to men, without preſenting vntounto them alſo the things wherof he doth admoniſh them by the ſame.
Ma.
How commeth it then to paſſe, that all do not communicate alyke?
Pe.
Bycauſe that all they to whome the gyftes of God are offered, do not receyue them.
M.
What is the cauſe that they do not receiue them?
P.
Bicauſe they bring not fayth with them, without the whiche no man can receiue them.
M.
Thou wilt then ſay, that they ſhut themſelues from it by meane of their vnbeléefe, and that it is not ſufficient that the gifts of God bée preſented vntounto vsus by his worde and hys ſacraments, if that forthwith they be not receiued, and they can not be receiued but by meane of Faith, which the infidels and hypocrites hauehave not.
P.
Thou oughteſt here to vnderſtād that Ieſus Chriſt may not be ſeparated from his ſprite, ſéeing that it is ſo, as none can receyue him but by his ſpirite, euen ſo can hée not be receyued, excepte he forthwith gyue hys holy ſpirite with him, and doe make partakers of all theſe guiftes and graces, all thoſe whiche receiue him.
Mathevve.
Thou haſte here yelded a greate reaſon.
Peter.
If it were not ſo, there ſhould be no difference betweene the faithfull and the infidell in the communion of GOD his Sacramentes and guyftes.
M.
Yet thou confeſſeſt that notwythſtandyng, they may communicate of the outwarde ſignes as well as the other, albeit they can not communicate of the thyngs ſignifyed by the ſignes.
Peter.
They maye there communicate well, forſomuche as no mā may let them, ſo long as they offer themſelues as faithfull, and that they be not diſcouered to the Churche for ſuche as they bée, in ſorte that they mought be vanquiſhed of their vnworthineſſe, to ſeclude them wholly. For if the things ſignified by the Sacramentes do not belong to them, no more alſo doe belong the ſignes whiche ſignifie them.
Math.
If they were then knowne of men to bée ſuche as they be before GOD, they ſhoulde bée excommunicate, to the ende they ſhoulde not approche.
Peter.
It is certayne. And bycauſe that they are not knowne, yf they were well aduyſed they woulde of them ſelues forbeare, for ſo much as they can not communicate of the very outward Sacramentes, but to their condemnation, bycauſe they are in no reſpect capable thereof, wherfore they do but diſhonour God and his Church, & prouoke daily more and more the wrath of God vponupon them.
VVherfore are the breade and wyne called by the name of the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, if they be not that body and bloud.
M.
I Am ſatiſfied touching that poynte, but I hauehave yet ſome difficultie concerning that which thou haſt ſaid, that the bread and the wine are not the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper: and yet it ſéemeth that Ieſus Chriſt ſaieth the contrarie cleane. For he calleth them his body and his bloud by his owne wordes which thou haſt euē now alledged.
P.
But he meaneth not thereby that the breade & wine are his body and bloude in proper ſubſtance, in ſuche ſort as their ſubſtance is cōuerted into the ſubſtance of his bodye and bloud.
M.
For what cauſe then vſeth he that maner of ſpeache, and hath not rather vſed ſome other more playne?
P.
There are chiefely two reaſons not only for that he vſed it, but alſo why that maner of ſpeache is more proper and more plaine in that matter than any other.
M.
Which is the firſt of theſe reaſons?
P.
It is that when the holy ſcripture ſpeaketh of Sacramentes, it doth willingly name the ſignes with the names of the thinges whiche are ſignified by them. And therfore Ieſus Chriſt would accōmodate himſelfe to that ſpeache which the holy Ghoſt hath alwaye accuſtomed to vſe in the Church, bycauſe that it is familiar and eaſye to vnderſtand to God his people with whō he hath to doe, and vntounto whom he doth addreſſe his doctrine.
M.
And why is it yt the holy Ghoſt ſpeaketh rather this lāguage than otherwiſe?
P.
Bycauſe it is more agréeable to this matter than any other.
M.
For what cauſe?
P.
For ſo muche as the Lorde will giuegive vsus to vnderſtand by ſuche phraſes of ſpeache, that albeit that the ſignes of the Sacramentes be not the very ſame thinges which are ſignified by them, yet notwithſtanding they are not without them.
Of the manner in the vvhiche the bodie and the bloud of Ieſus Chriſte are preſent in the supper, and are communicate to the faithfull as vvell as the ſignes vvhichwhich repreſent them.
M.
IN what ſorte then are they there, if the ſignes remayn ſtil in their own ſubſtance.
P.
Albeit they be not there by a naturall, corporall & materiall preſence as the viſible ſignes whiche are there giuen to vsus: that notwithſtanding they be thereby a diuine & ſpirituall vertue and maner, wherby God, by the vertue of his holy ſpirite, doth make partaker of them all ſuche as by true and liuely faithe, doe receiue his word and his ſacraments, by which he cōfirmeth the ſame in our harts.
Of the ſubſtantiall and naturall coniunction of the bodie and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, with the bread and vvith the vvine of the Supper.
M.
BVt if the breade and the wine doe not chaunge their ſubſtaunce, and neyther be tranſubſtantiated, conuerted nor changed into the bodie and the bloud of Ieſus Chryſte, may not then the bodie and bloud of Ieſus Chryſte be well ioyned to them in their owne proper ſubſtāce & nature?
P.
Ther are among thoſe which reiect the falſe doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, by the whiche we hauehave bene ſometyme taught, that the very ſubſtāce of the bread and of the wine was chaunged into the very ſubſtance of the body & of the bloud of Ieſus Chryſt, which ar of the opinion yt thou now ſetteſt forth.
M.
And why do they rather folow yt opinion than ye other?
P.
Bicauſe that they know well yt opinion to be too groſſe. And therfore they hauehave recourſe to that other maner of preſence of the bodie and bloud of Ieſus Chryſte, in the Supper, whereof thou haſte now made mention.
M.
And what inconueniente fyndeſt thou in that opinion?
Peter.
I fynde not muche leſſe therein than in that of Tranſubſtantiation.
Math.
Thou canſte not ſaye at the leaſte but that they whiche followe it, doe take from the Supper the ſignes of the breade and of the wyne, for ſo much as they ioyne them wyth the bodie and the bloud of Ieſus Chryſte, the whiche they ſignifie.
Peter.
No more are they alſo ſo greatlye different in other matters to them that mayntain tranſubſtantiation, And therfore may we lawfully call the opiniō of ſuch men, cōſubſtantiation.
M.
What vnderſtandeſt thou by this word of Conſubſtantiation?
P.
As they which hauehave forged the tranſubſtātiation do vnderſtand by the ſame, a changing of ſubſtance into an other, euen ſo by the name of conſubſtantiation, a man may vnderſtande the coniunction of diuers ſubſtances togither.
Of the agreement that is betwene this opinion & that, of tranſubſtantiation.
M.
DEclare vntounto me then wherin they do agrée, and wherin they doe differ.
Peter.
For the firſt, if they doe vnderſtande that the bodie and the bloud of Ieſus Chriſte bée wyth the breade and the wine, in their own nature and ſubſtance, and by a naturall, corporall and materiall maner as the bread and the wyne are there, they agrée therin with the erroure of tranſubſtantiation.
M.
It ſéemeth to mée that they drawe well to one poynte, ſauing that they make no tranſubſtantiation nor chaunge of the breade and of the wine, into the body and bloude of Ieſus Chriſt.
P.
Thou ſéeſt it plainely, & by that whiche we hauehave alredy ſayde, thou mayeſt well vnderſtand, that ſuch a naturall and corporall preſence of the body and of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt in the Supper, ſhould be cleane contrary to the nature of a ſpirituall nouriture, the whiche is there ſet foorth vntounto vsus, and likewiſe to the mā ner of eating of the body and the fleſh, and the drinking of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, according to the whiche they may be eatē and dronkē for ſpirituall meate & drinke.