A10233:92
Two very learned sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the…Two very lerned sermons of M. Beza, togither with a short sum of the…
Two very learned sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lords Supper: Whereunto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper, wherein is briefly and soundly discussed the p[r]incipall points in controversy, concerning that question. By T.W.Two very lerned sermons of M. Beza, togither with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lordes Supper: Wherevnto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper, wherin is breflie and soundlie discussed the p[r]incipall points in controuersie, concerning that question. By T.W.
London: printed by Robert Walde-grave for T. Man, 1588London: printed by Robert Walde-graue for T. Man, 1588
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Then the controversy shall not be,1 yet touching the interpretation and meaning of these words of the institution, in which there is no mention at all, neither of presence nor absence, but herein only shall they consist, whether that body (of which that bread is said to be the Sacrament) be absent or present: which controversy, I can not so much as suppose how these men should determine out of these words This is my body.
Then ye controuersie shal not be,1 yet touching the interpretation and meaning of these wordes of the institution, in which there is no mention at all, neither of presence nor absence, but herein onelie shall they consist, whether that bodie (of which that bread is saide to be the Sacrament) be absent or present: which controuersie, I can not so much as suppose howe these men should determine out of these wordes This is my bodie.
- 1The state of the controversy or question, is not about the interpretation of the words of institution, but about the presence of Christs body.The state of the controuersie or question, is not about the interpretation of the wordes of institution, but about the presence of Christs bodie.
1Hitherto we have spoken of the first part of the Lords supper, to wit, the bread: but now let us come to the other part, to wit, the cup. But tell us (I pray you) what we must understand by the word cup? Verily, by their confession, even that which is contained in the cup, that is to say, the wine, and yet over and besides that, the blood of Christ, as they will needs have it. The former of these I grant, to wit, that by the cup should be meant, the wine contained in the cup: but the latter I deny, to wit, that that wine should be in substance the very blood of Christ, and this I do deny standing upon the reasons, which I have before spoken and alleged. But howsoever it be, whether there be meant thereby this wine alone, or together with the wine, even the blood it self: yet needs must these deadly enemies of tropes and figures acknowledge one figure here, to wit, a Metonomia, of the thing containing for the thing contained, yea, and that same very trope of the same figure Synecdoche, (which we have spoken of before) whereby it cometh to pass, that the wine and the blood are said to be the blood.