A Christian instruction, conteyning the law and the Gospell. Also a summarie of the principall poyntes of the Christian fayth and religion, and of the abuses and errors contrary to the same. Done in certayne dialogues in french, by M. Peter Viret, sometime minister of the Word of God at Nymes in Prouince. Translated by I.S. Seene and allowed according to the Queenes Maiesties iniunctions.

The seauententh Dialo∣gue is of the communication of Iesus Christ as wel in Bap∣tisme as in the Supper.

VVherevnto baptisme and the significa∣tion thereof may serue to giue vs to vn∣derstand in vvhat sorte it behoueth vs to be nourished by the body and bloud of Iesus Christ.

MATHEVV.

I Haue well vnderstoode that thou hast sayde that we must be nourished with spirituall meate and nouriture into eter∣nall life, and that by a spirituall maner, agreable to the spirituall birth and life, into y^e which we are regenerate by bap∣tisme, and according to the testimonie of God which is set foorth vnto vs in y^e same concerning our regeneration.

P.

That whiche thou sayest maye serue vs very much to the vnderstanding of the matter which we now hādle. For thou doest wel know that we are not regenerate in bap∣tisme, by any corporall or material séede of the body and of the bloude of Iesus Christe, nor by any naturall manner, as we are naturally begotten by our fathers & mothers.

M.

I know well also that we may not enter againe into our mothers womb, as Nicodeme said to Iesus christ, to be borne a new once more, as we are already once borne.

P.

And therefore I doubt not but that thou doest well vnder∣stande that that regeneration and newe birth is wrought by a séede incorruptible, spiritual and diuine, by the which we are

begotten into the Churche by the vertue of the holy Ghoste, by whome we are re∣generate into a new life.

In vvhat sorte vve do communicate of the body & bloud of Iesus christ in baptism.

M.

IT is not also said, that Iesus Christ doth giue his body and his bloud in Baptisme, as he doth in the supper, like wise the water is not called therein the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe, as Iesus Christ doth in the Supper call the bread & the wine by the name of them.

P.

Albeit y^e the water be not there called in baptisme by that name, dost thou thinke for all that, that the body and bloude of Iesus Christ be not there distributed and communicated vnto thée in the same, as well as in the Supper?

M.

I do not so vn∣derstand it.

P.

Thou wilte then ordeyne a Baptisme withoute Iesus Christe.

M.

Wherfore?

P.

Bycause thou cāst not haue Iesus Christ, except thou haue him who∣ly, and very God and very man, and that thou haue true communion with his bo∣dy & with his bloud, not only in y^e supper, but also in baptisme.

M.

Shewe me the cause thereof.

P.

It is bycause y^t the Bap∣tisme doth no lesse sende vs to the deathe

and passion, and to the body and bloud of Iesus Christe, than doth the Supper, for somuch as that is proper to al sacramēts.

VVhat difference there is betvvene the baptisme and the Supper, touching the communion of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ.

M.

IT séemeth to me that thou speakest against that whiche thou hast sayde heretofore, touching the difference which thou hast put betwene baptisme and the Supper, for it séemeth that thou spea∣kest now, as though baptisme & the sup∣per were one very Sacramente, and that there were no difference betwene them.

P.

Thou makest an euill conclusion. For albeit that we doe as well participate of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in baptisme as in the Supper, yet not∣withstanding, there is difference in the participation and in the manner thereof, in respect of the benefites of Iesus Christ, whiche are signified and communicated vnto vs as wel in y^e one of the sacramēts as in the other.

M.

I haue not thē wel vn∣derstoode thée yet heretofore, and therfore declare vnto me more easily that whiche

thou now speakest of.

P.

Although the bo∣dy of Iesus Christe be not giuen vnto vs in baptisme as for spirituall foode, as it is in the Supper, that notwithstanding it is there giuen vnto vs in very déede, as a garment of innocencie, of Iustice and of holynesse to couer all our sinnes before God. And therefore S. Paule saith, that all those which are baptised, haue put on them Iesus Christ.

M.

And of the bloud, what sayest thou?

P.

Albeit that it be not giuen vnto vs in Baptisme, as for drinke as it is in the supper, yet notwithstāding it is there giuen vnto vs for a spirituall washing of our soules and consciences, whereby Iesus Christe dothe purifie and clense his Church in this lauer of regene∣ration, to the ende that he may make it pure, cleane, withoute spotte or wrinkle and a holy and glorious Churche.

M.

I did neuer yet so well vnderstande these two pointes, nor yet the diuersitie and difference that thou hast made betwene the benefites of Iesus Christe, and the Baptisme and the Supper whiche are Sacramentes, as now I do vnderstande all these things.

In vvhat sorte the faithfull in baptis∣me do put on Iesus Christ, and are vvashed vvith his bloud.

P.

WHen I tell thée that the baptisme declareth vnto vs howe that Ie∣sus Christe is set foorthe vnto vs in bap∣tisme, for a robe of innocencie, Iustice, & holynes, and that we cloth our selfe with him by meane of y^e same, I do not thinke thée to be of so grosse an vnderstanding, to thinke, that the faithfull do put on Ie∣sus Christ naturally and corporally, as a man putteth on a garment or a cloke.

M.

I should be very grosse if I so vnderstoode it.

P.

How doest thou then vnderstand it?

M.

That euen as a garmente or a cloke do serue to couer the body, euen so do the innocencie, iustice and holynesse of Iesus Christe serue vs to couer our sinnes at the iudgemente of God, to the ende that there appere no one spotte of them in his sighte.

P.

And touching the bloude of Ie∣sus Christe, doest thou thinke that oure soules and consciences be washed and made cleane in Baptisme, as one would with water wash a body in a bath or ry∣uer,

or else shéetes in a bucke?

Mathevv.

Thou makest here with me goodly dis∣courses: I thinke there is none so beast∣ly, whiche doth not well knowe that the bloud of Iesus Christe is called the wa∣shing of soules, and of consciences, not as though they must be washed and dipped in the bloud of Iesus Christe, as one woulde wash and dippe a body, that he woulde washe and make cleane, or some other suche like thing, but that the holy Ghost speaketh so, to giue vs to vn∣derstande that whiche thou hast sayde, to witte, what the water of baptisme signi∣fieth, concerning the washing and pu∣rification of our soules and consciences in the bloud of Iesus Christ.

VVhat greater reason there is to commu∣nicate corporally of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper, than in Baptisme.

P.

THow doest aunswere me verye well, but if thou find it strange that a man shuld say, that they which are bap∣tised

haue put on Iesus Christ bodily as a garmente, and are washed with hys bloud as with a materiall bath, why shouldest thou not finde it as straunge or more straunge, that a man should say that the body and the bloud of Iesus Christe are naturally and bodily eaten and drun∣ken in the Supper, as are the bread & the wine which are the signes?

M.

Thou makest me to consider somewhat more déepely of this matter, than heretofore I did.

P.

It is a matter well to be thoughte on. For if that in Baptisme we haue no carnall communication with the body and bloud of Iesus Christ, but only a spi∣ritual, I sée not what greter reason there is, to haue rather in the Supper a carnal communication with him, than in Bap∣tisme, considering that the supper depen∣deth of baptisme, and that it is as a more ample confirmation of the possession of the benefites of Iesus Christe, into the whiche wée beginne to enter by Bap∣tisme, and doe continue by the Supper.

M.

I finde thy reasons very good.

P.

Thou shalte finde them yet better, if thou do consider how muche that grosse

and carnall opinion doth disagrée as wel with the nature of the body & of the bloud of Iesus Chryste, as wyth the faith that we oughte to haue in his ascention into heauen, and of his seate at the right hand of God, and of his spirituall and diuine presence and vertue, by the whiche he is euer present in his church, and doth guide and gouerne it eternally.

Hovve the corporall and carnall presence of the bodie and of the bloud of Iesus Christ in the Supper greeth not with the true nature of them.

M.

EXpounde this same vnto me some∣what more at large.

P.

For the first, to what purpose is it to thinke, that the bodie of Iesus Chryst is chewed and eaten and sent into the stomacke, and frō thence downe into the bellie, as is the bread whiche signifieth it in the Supper: and that his bloud is also drunken as is the wyne which is the signe? For bée it that thou vnderstand that the breade and the wyne be conuerted into the substance of the bodie and bloud, or else that the bo∣die

be eaten with the bread, and the bloud drunken with the wine, yet is there still greate absurditie, cleane contrary to the nature of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste.

M.

What contrarietie fyndest thou therin?

P.

Séeing that Iesus Christ hath a very true naturall bodie in euery respecte lyke vnto oures, as touchyng the corporall substaunce, sinne excepte, it is certaine and true, that hée is not bodily and naturally not only in the heauen, and in the earthe at one tyme, but also ney∣ther in infinite places. For he hathe not a bodie whiche filleth the heauen and the earth as dothe his diuinitie, but hathe a bodie whyche can not be a true and ve∣rie bodie, if hée be not in some certayne place agreeable to his nature, to his glo∣rie and celestiall maiestie.

Hovve the glorifying of the bodie of Ie∣sus Chryst, doth not chaunge at all the substantiall nature & propre sub∣staunce of the same.

M.

THou speakest of the bodie of Ie∣sus Chryste, as though he were in euery respecte like vnto oures, and that

he were not glorified at all, as ours shall be also after the Resurrection of our bo∣dies.

P.

Albéeit that the bodie of Iesus be glorifyed by his Resurrection and As∣cention into heauen, yet followeth it not for all that that he hath lost the proprie∣ties of his humane nature, and that his corporall substance is chaunged in suche sorte that it is conuerted into diuine na∣ture, or that he is in suche sort transfour∣med, that he is infinite, to be in euerye place: or that he is so multiplied, that for one bodie he hath many, or an infinite number, as necessarily it must be, if the errour wherof wée nowe speake, shoulde haue place.

Of the contrarietie that is betvvene the corporall presence of Iesus Chryst in the Supper, and his ascen∣tion into heauen.

M.

BVt they which maynteyn thye o∣pinion, say that these things maye not be considered naturally, but super∣naturally, and that they do surpasse the capacitie of all mans vnderstanding.

P.

I graunte them all that. But why is it then that they forge vs a corporall and

naturall presence of the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chryste in the stéede of a super∣naturall and spiritual presence.

M.

They say that the same corporall and naturall presence doth not at all hinder the super∣naturall and spirituall.

Pet.

Albeit that they saye it, it doth not therfore followe that it is so. And on the other syde. I sée not howe they will agrée their opinion with the articles of oure faythe, by whi∣che wée doe confesse, not only that Iesus Christe is gone vp into heauen, but also that he is there sette at the ryght hande of the Father, and that from thence hée shall come in Iudgemente by a visyble and corporall presence, euen as he went vp visibly & corporally, according to the verie testimonie of the Angels, and al∣so of Sainte Peter, who hath sayd, that the Heauen muste néedes receyue hym, vntill the tyme of the restoring of all thyngs, wherof God hath spoken by the mouthe of all his Pro∣phetes since the beginning.

Notes

• Iohn. 3. a.
• Galath. 3.
• Acts. 1. b. 3. d.