The sum of Christian religion: delivered by Zacharias Ursinus in his lectures upon the Catechism authorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment, which have been or are controversed in divinity. Translated into English by Henry Parry, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supply of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of divinity, and with correction of sundry faults & imperfections, which are [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latin.
The summe of Christian religion: deliuered by Zacharias Vrsinus in his lectures vpon the Catechism autorised by the noble Prince Frederick, throughout his dominions: wherein are debated and resolued the questions of whatsoeuer points of moment, which haue beene or are controuersed in diuinitie. Translated into English by Henrie Parrie, out of the last & best Latin editions, together with some supplie of wa[n]ts out of his discourses of diuinitie, and with correction of sundrie faults & imperfections, which ar [sic] as yet remaining in the best corrected Latine.
Zacharias Ursinus 1534–1583Oxford: printed by Joseph Barnes, 1587Oxford: printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1587
[16], 1047, [9] p. · 432k words · STC 24532 · ESTC S118924
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.
Certain arguments of the Consubstantiaries, whereby they go about to overthrow our doctrine of the Lords Supper: together with the refutations of them.
Certaine arguments of the Consubstantiaries, whereby they goe about to ouerthrow our doctrine of the Lords Supper: together with the refutations of them.
1 THE words of the institution are open and plain, This my body, this is my blood. Answer. They allege these words against them-selves. For they say, That the body of Christ is received really in, under, with the ⟨p. 778⟩bread: when christ saith, that the very bread is his body. Wherefore they do a double injury unto the church: first, while they thrust upon the church their own words for Christs. Secondly, while they imagine that the church perceiveth not these speeches to be diverse, In the bread is my body, and, The bread is my body. They accuse Christ also for a liar: for they deny that the bread is his body, but that his body is in the bread. Let them look therefore unto it, how they will answer Christ at the last judgement for this blasphemy and reproach. The Papists also do more retain the very words of Christ. But these retain not the word, but follow the sense and meaning. We must see therefore which part followeth it. Ours shall be proved in the end. Reply. Christ addeth an exposition of his mind, Which is given for you, and, Which is shed for you. Answer. First, this is a begging of that which is in question. For they take as granted, that the bread is properly called the body, which yet lieth upon them to prove. For it is a sacramental manner of speaking. Secondly, we return their own reason upon them by inverting it thus. The body of Christ properly so called was given for us. But the bread was not given for us: Therefore the bread is not the body properly so called. Likewise, as the bread is the body broken, so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body. But the breaking of the body is the crucifying thereof. Therefore the bread broken is but sacramentally and by representation, the body broken.
1 THE words of the institution are open and plain, This my bodie, this is my bloud. Answere. They alleadge these woordes against them-selues. For they saie, That the bodie of Christ is receiued reallie in, vnder, with the ⟨p. 778⟩bread: when christ saith, that the very bread is his body. Wherefore they doe a double iniury vnto the church: first, while they thrust vpon the church their owne words for Christs. Secondly, while they imagine that the church perceiueth not these speeches to be diuerse, In the bread is my body, and, The bread is my bodie. They accuse Christ also for a lier: for they deny that the bread is his body, but that his body is in the bread. Let them looke therefore vnto it, how they wil aunswere Christ at the last iudgement for this blasphemy and reproch. The Papistes also doe more retaine the very words of Christ. But these retaine not the woord, but follow the sense and meaning. We must see therfore which part followeth it. Ours shal be prooued in the end. Replie. Christ addeth an exposition of his minde, Which is giuen for you, and, Which is shed for you. Answere. First, this is a begging of that which is in question. For they take as graunted, that the bread is properly called the bodie, which yet lieth vpon them to prooue. For it is a sacramental maner of speaking. Secondly, we returne their own reason vpon them by inuerting it thus. The bodie of Christ properly so called was giuē for vs. But the bread was not giuē for vs: Therfore the bread is not the body properly so called. Likewise, as the bread is the body broken, so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the bodie. But the breaking of the bodie is the crucifieng thereof. Therefore the breade broken is but sacramentally and by representation, the bodie broken.
2 They reason from the author, who said it, and is true. Answer. This is also a begging of that which is in question. They must prove that Christ said, his body was in, under, with the bread. And further a man may speak figuratively, and yet speak perspicuously and plainly. Reply. He is also omnipotent. Therefore he is able to be everywhere, and so in the bread. Answer. Albeit he were able to bring to pass, that two flat repugnant things should be true together: yet will he not do it. Again, God is not able to work contradictories, or things flat repugnant, because he is true. Now, to will those things which are contradictory, argueth a liar. Wherefore we deny not the trueth and omnipotency of God; but these mens lies: nay rather we defend gods truth, ⟨p. 779⟩affirming that God doth that which he spake. But they oppugn it making contrary wills to be in God. Reply. Christs body hath many prerogatives not agreeable to our bodies: as that he was borne of a Virgin, walked on the sea, was at one time and together in the grave, in Hell, and in Paradise: and passed through the gates when they were fast shut. Answer. These examples are partly not matches, & partly false. For this may agree unto a creature, to walk on the waters, as it did unto Peter: to pass through the gates shut, as is agreeable to the nature of a spirit. Again, These examples are not matches nor of the same quality with that which is in question. Because these do not •mply a contradiction. For when he is said to be borne of a Virgin, he is not said withal, not to be borne of a Virgin. But to be both finite and infinite (as they will have Christs body who consubstantiate it with the bread) these imply a contradiction. Now it is false, that they say, that he passed thorough the gate• shut, whereas the gates might yield and o•en unto him: as also, that he passed through the door or stone of the grave, when as it is said that the Angel did open it: and lastly, when they say, that Christs body was at once and together in moe places: which they seem to have taken out of Augustine. But Augustine said, That his body was in the grave, his soul in hell, and his Godhead everywhere.
2 They reason from the autor, who said it, and is true. Aunswere. This is also a begging of that which is in question. They must proue that Christ said, his bodie was in, vnder, with the bread. And further a man may speake figuratiuely, and yet speake perspicuouslie and plainly. Reply. He is also omnipotent. Therefore he is able to be eueriewhere, and so in the bread. Aunswere. Albeit he were able to bring to passe, that two flat repugnaunt thinges should be true together: yet wil he not doe it. Againe, God is not able to woorke contradictories, or thinges flat repugnaunt, because he is true. Now, to wil those thinges which are contradictorie, argueth a lier. Wherefore wee deny not the trueth and omnipotency of God; but these mens lies: nay rather we defend gods truth,
3 They reason from a circumstance of the time: The same night in which he was betrayed. No man which speaketh seriously, speaketh figuratively, Christ instituting his supper spake seriously. Therefore without any figure. Answer. I deny the Major: because by that position no man that speaketh seriously should speak figuratively, which is most false. God speaketh in all sacraments, though figuratively, yet seriously. I have earnestly desired (saith Christ) to eat this Passover with you. Wherefore I answer, that he useth not jesting or obscure figures. This figure is perspicuous, because it is usual, and his disciples speak so: Where wilt thou that we go, and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? It is usual also in all sacraments It is forcible and emphatical, because it expresseth the similitude of the sign and the thing signified, and the certainty of the conjunction of both in the right use and administration. Again we invert their reason, and say, Because christ spake seriously, therefore he used a figure which ⟨p. 780⟩doth well express and declare the thing. Reply. Christ said, This cup is the new testament. In wills and testaments men speak properly. Christ here instituteth a sacrament: therefore, &c. Answer. I deny the Major, and invert the reason: for seeing he would institute a sacrament, therefore he spake figuratively, calling his Supper the new Testament; which is figuratively to be understood for these two reasons. 1. Because otherwise there should be two covenants, the one proper, and the other the supper. 2. Otherwise also they should be shut out from Gods covenant, who cannot come to the supper, and all who came to the supper should be in the covenant. Objection. Christ saith, In my blood. Therefore the real blood of christ is in the supper, and is drunk by the mouth. Answer. We conclude the contrary rather by those words of Christ. Because the new testament was made by Christs blood shed on the Cross and applied unto us by faith, not drunk by the mouth: for otherwise they should be excluded from the testament and covenant, who were not able to come to this sacrament. Reply. There is a great force in the word, New. That which was done in the old testament typically, is done in the new really. Answer. If they add, Therefore done by the mouth of the body:
they bring in more in the conclusion, than was in the antecedent. For there was no type in the old testament which did signify the eating of Christ with the mouth. 2. We invert their reason. Christs body was no otherwise eaten in the new testament, than in the old: But in the old it was eaten spiritually only: Therefore in the new also it is so eaten. Reply. The new testament differeth from the old, because in that were types, in the new is the body it self, Heb. 9. Col. 2. Answer. This difference of the old and new testament is no where set down in holy scripture that Christ is eaten in the old not really, and in the new corporally by the mouth. In the places which are alleged out of the Apostle, the body signifieth that the shadow was only of the old testament and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ. Because there the body is opposed to those shadows: and further because he calleth it the body of christ: which kind of speech showeth that by Christ was wrought the accomplishment & fulfilling of the types ⟨p. 781⟩or shadows of the Old Testament. Moreover, albeit we have Christ exhibited in the new testament, and he is there borne man, yet notwithstanding it doth not therefore follow hereof, that his body is in the bread, but only that it is in the new testament.
they bring in more in the conclusion, than was in the antecedent. For there was no type in the olde testament which did signifie the eating of Christ with the mouth. 2. We inuert their reason. Christs bodie was no otherwise eaten in the new testament, than in the olde: But in the old it was eaten spirituallie onely: Therefore in the new also it is so eaten. Reply. The newe testament differeth from the olde, because in that were types, in the newe is the bodie it selfe, Heb. 9. Col. 2. Aunswere. This difference of the old and new testament is no where set downe in holy scripture that Christ is eaten in the old not really, and in the newe corporally by the mouth. In the places which are alleadged out of the Apostle, the bodie signifieth that the shadow was onely of the old testament and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ. Because there the bodie is opposed to those shadowes: and further because he calleth it the bodie of christ: which kinde of speech sheweth that by Christ was wrought the accomplishment & fulfilling of the types
4 They reason from the consent of the Evangelists, and sain• Paul. Matthew, as Theophylact calculateth, writ his gospel eight years after christs ascension: Mark, ten years: Luke, fifteen years: Paul, twenty years. And all use the same words. A speech that is often uttered with the same words is not figurative. Such is the speech of the Lords Supper. Therefore it is not figurative. Answer. It is false that a speech often uttered in the same words is not figurative: because when a figure is conspicuous, known, and forcible, as this, it is retained. Again, the Evangelists repeat the words of Christ, because he spake figuratively. Often, though it be figurative, is this repeated: He shall baptize with the holy Ghost and with fire. Joh. 1. Matth. 3. Moreover we deny that this speech of Christs Supper was repeated by all in the same words. 1. Because Matthew and Mark say, This is my blood of the new testament. Luke saith, This cup is the new testament in my blood. 2. Matthew and Mark say, This is my body. Luke addeth, which is given for you: Paul, which is broken for you. 3. Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of the body of Christ. And albeit in this place he speaketh not purposedly of the Supper, yet he stirreth up and exhorteth unto it. Reply. It is the same sense and meaning. Answer. The question is not now of the sense and meaning of the words, but of the identity of the words, that is, whether they be the same words. Reply. Where there is no mention at all of any figure, there is no figure. Answer. This is false. For foolish were it, and men should seem to make show and ostentation of their skill and art, if they should say that they used a trim figure. And the scripture also often speaketh figuratively, and yet doth it not ad withal that it speaketh figuratively. Furthermore, they make mention hereof, when they show, that it consisteth of the nature of the subject and the attribute. The body was borne of the Virgin, crucified, and so forth. The bread is made of meal. Secondly, Christ willeth this to be done in remembrance of him: Therefore the ⟨p. 782⟩bread is called his body, as a memorial of his body. Thirdly Matthew and Mark say, This is my blood of the new testament. Paul and Luke say, This is the new testament in my blood.
Now the new testament is the bond whereby God hath bound himself to receive the faithful and repentant into favour, and they bind themselves to yield faith and obedience unto him. Fourthly, Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of Christs body, which is not any corporal eating. 1. Because the faithful are thereby one body in christ. 2. Because he compareth it with the Communion of the altar in the old testament, which was not corporal. 3. Because it can agree but to the faithful only, and not to the wicked. 4. John showeth that communion: If we walk in the light we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin. And further this communion whereof saint Paul speaketh, is our union with Christ, and fruition of all his benefits by faith. Hither belongeth the similitude of the body and the members, the vine and the branches; which have nothing to do with any corporal eating. This communion was and is common to all the faithful from the beginning unto the worlds end. But they could not eat the body of christ corporally by their mouth. That we might grow up unto him, by whom all the body is coupled and knit together. He that is joined unto the Lord, is one spirit. And by one spirit are we all baptized into one body. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us; because he hath given us of his spirit. This union therefore is that communion, which is wrought by the holy Ghost. Wherefore it is spiritual For bread cannot be this communion but by a figure, as it is a sign of it. Reply. He that is guilty of the body of Christ, eateth it. They who receive unworthily are guilty of the body of Christ. Therefore they eat it corporally: for spiritually they cannot: because if they could so eat it, they should not be guilty. Answer. The Major is false For he is guilty of Christs body who by his sins hangeth it on the Cross again, and despiseth Christs benefit. For any real eating is not required to this guilt, but he that will not receive Christ offered by faith, is thereby made guilty. So the injury done unto the Ark, is said to be done unto the Lord. Reply. They that discern not the Lords body, eat it. But the ⟨p. 783⟩guilty discern it not; Therefore they eat it. Answer.
Now the newe testament is the bond whereby God hath bound himselfe to receiue the faithful and repentant into fauour, and they binde themselues to yeelde faith and obedience vnto him. Fourthly, Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of Christs bodie, which is not any corporal eating. 1. Because the faithful are thereby one bodie in christ. 2. Because he compareth it with the Communion of the altar in the old testament, which was not corporal. 3. Because it can agree but to the faithful onely, and not to the wicked. 4. Iohn sheweth that communion: If we walke in the light we haue fellowship one with another, and the bloud of Iesus Christ his sonne cleanseth vs from all sinne. And further this communion whereof saint Paul speaketh, is our vnion with Christ, and fruition of all his benefites by faith. Hither belongeth the similitude of the bodie and the members, the vine and the braunches; which haue nothing to doe with any corporal eating. This communion was and is common to all the faithful from the beginning vnto the worlds end. But they could not eat the body of christ corporally by their mouth. That wee might growe vp vnto him, by whom all the bodie is coupled and knit together. He that is ioined vnto the Lord, is one spirite. And by one spirite are we all baptized into one bodie. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in vs; because he hath giuen vs of his spirite. This vnion therefore is that communion, which is wrought by the holy Ghost. Wherefore it is spiritual For bread cannot be this communion but by a figure, as it is a signe of it. Replie. He that is guiltie of the bodie of Christ, eateth it. They who receiue vnworthilie are guiltie of the bodie of Christ. Therefore they eate it corporallie: for spirituallie they cannot: because if they coulde so eate it, they shoulde not be guiltie. Aunswere. The Maior is false For hee is guiltie of Christes bodie who by his sinnes hangeth it on the Crosse againe, and despiseth Christs benefite. For any real eating is not required to this guilt, but hee that will not receiue Christ offered by faith, is thereby made guiltie. So the iniurie done vnto the Arke, is said to be done vnto the Lord. Replie. They that discerne not the Lords bodie, eate it. But the
If the Major be taken sacramentally, as of the bread, which is called and is the body of Christ, it is true: but if properly, it is false. For, not to discern his body, is not to give due honour to it, to contemn it, yea not to receive the thing signified So Heb. 10.29. They are said to tread under foot the son of God, and to count the blood of the testament as an unholy thing, who contemn him.
If the Maior bee taken sacramentally, as of the breade, which is called and is the bodie of Christ, it is true: but if properly, it is false. For, not to discerne his body, is not to giue due honor to it, to contemne it, yea not to receiue the thing signified So Heb. 10.29. They are said to treade vnder foote the sonne of God, and to count the bloud of the testament as an vnholie thing, who contemne him.
5 They reason from the testimonies of the Fathers and the godly of ancient times in the purer state of the church. Answer. The sayings of the Fathers are to be understood sacramentally, or of our spiritual communion. Reply. Austin saith, thou shalt receive this in the bread, which hung on the cross: and this in the cup, which was shed out of christs side. Answer. In the bread, as in the sign, that is, together with the sign thou shalt receive the thing signified. When we receive the bread, we are certain that we have Christ. 2. Reply, Cyril upon John saith: By natural participation, not only spiritually, but also corporally: not only according to the spirit, but also according to the flesh, corporally & essentially. Ans. Cyril speaketh not of the manner of eating, but of the thing which was to be eaten. He showeth that we are made partakers not only of christs spirit, but also of his human nature. Now he understandeth a spiritual communion. 1. Because he citeth those places concerning it. Joh. 6. & 1. Cor. 10. where no mention is made of corporal eating. 2. He speaketh of the presence of Christ, not in the bread, but in us. 3. He proveth the abiding of Christ in us by the use of the Supper, not by any corporal eating. 4. He so describeth it, that he saith, It shall continue in the life to come. 5. He speaketh of that communion, which is proper unto the Saints. Now this is spiritual; for otherwise it should befall also to the wicked.
5 They reason from the testimonies of the Fathers and the godlie of auncient times in the purer state of the church. Aunswere. The sayings of the Fathers are to be vnderstoode sacramentally, or of our spiritual communion. Replie. Austin saith, thou shalt receiue this in the bread, which hung on the crosse: and this in the cup, which was shed out of christs side. Answere. In the bread, as in the signe, that is, together with the signe thou shalt receiue the thing signified. When wee receiue the bread, wee are certaine that wee haue Christ. 2. Replie, Cyrill vpon Iohn saith: By natural participation, not onelie spirituallie, but also corporallie: not onelie according to the spirit, but also according to the flesh, corporally & essentially. Ans. Cyril speaketh not of the maner of eating, but of the thing which was to be eatē. He sheweth that we are made partakers not only of christs spirit, but also of his human nature. Now he vnderstandeth a spiritual communion. 1. Because he citeth those places cōcerning it.
1 We make not, say they, any Capernaiticall eating. Ans. We demand of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth; be it after a gross, or after finer manner. But how ever they answer, in that opinion which they hold, there is too too much idolatry. For christ ⟨p. 784⟩refuting the Capernaites, doth not distinguish the eating of him, into a gross and a finer manner, but saith simply, That his body can not be eaten with the bodily mouth: for he sayeth, that he must ascend; And that the words which he speaketh are spirit and life.
1 WEe make not, say they, any Capernaiticall eating. Ans. We demaunde of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth; be it after a grosse, or after finer maner. But how euer they aunswere, in that opinion which they hold, there is too too much idolatry. For christ ⟨p. 784⟩refuting the Capernaites, doth not distinguish the eating of him, into a grosse and a finer manner, but saith simplie, That his bodie can not be eaten with the bodily mouth: for he saieth, that hee must ascend; And that the woordes which hee speaketh are spirit and life.
2 We maintain not Ubiquity: for there is not a word thereof to be found. Answer. Here is to be observed the dissension of the adversaries about Ubiquity. But neither is a word to be found hereof, That the body of Christ is together in two places. And further, of this their opinion followeth Ubiquity. For he that is together & at one time in moe places, must needs be infinite, & therefore everywhere.
2 Wee mainetaine not Vbiquitie: for there is not a woorde thereof to bee found. Aunswere. Here is to bee obserued the dissension of the aduersaries about Vbiquitie. But neither is a worde to be found hereof, That the bodie of Christ is together in two places. And further, of this their opinion followeth Vbiquitie. For he that is together & at one time in moe places, must needes be infinite, & therefore eueriewhere.
3 We overthrow not the article of Christs ascension. Answer. Yea, but they do overthrow it. For while they hold, that, as often as the supper is celebrated, Christ is corporally eaten, they must needs say that he remained and is invisible on earth. But he is said to have left the world, to have ascended from a lower place into an higher, and to remain in heaven, until he come to judgement. Now, that some except, That Christ doth descend from heaven, as oft as the supper is administered; it is already refuted.
3 Wee ouerthrow not the article of Christs ascension. Aunswere. Yea, but they doe ouerthrow it. For while they holde, that, as often as the supper is celebrated, Christ is corporallie eaten, they must needes say that he remained and is inuisible on earth. But he is said to haue left the world, to haue ascended from a lower place into an higher, and to remaine in heauen, vntill hee come to iudgement. Nowe, that some except, That Christ dooth descend from heauen, as oft as the supper is administred; it is already refuted.
4 We take not away the doctrine of the properties of christs humanity. Answer. They altogether take it away. For they will have his humane nature to be such, as is not seen, nor felt, nor limited in place. Reply. But christ did put off these infirmities, & retained the essential properties. Answer. But these are very essential properties, which being taken away, the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken away, Augustine saith; Take away from bodies their spaces, and they shall be no where.
4 We take not awaie the doctrine of the properties of christs humanitie. Answere. They altogether take it away. For they wil haue his humane nature to be such, as is not seene, nor felt, nor limited in place. Reply. But christ did put off these infirmities, & reteined the essential properties. Answere. But these are verie essential properties, which being taken away, the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken awaie, Austine saith; Take awaie from bodies their spaces, and they shall be no where.
5 We abolish not the Doctrine concerning the communicating of properties of both natures. Answer. Yea but they endeavour it. For they apply those properties of his divine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete, to both natures. J will be with you to the end of the world. This they understand of both natures: which is all one, as if, when it is said, Christ God and man was circumcised, one should thus conclude; Therefore the godhead of Christ was circumcised as well as his flesh. Reply. ⟨p. 785⟩This only we add; That those Articles belong to them. Answer. After this sort all sects may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures. But they belong hither, and that by a double right. 1. Because they are written of the body of Christ. But the body of Christ belongeth to the supper. Therefore these Articles also belong hither. For they show, how Christs body is to be ea•en 2 They belong hither, because no Article of faith, is at variance with another. So belongeth hither also the Doctrine of justification because in the •upper no other justice or righteousness must be sought for, but by the blood of Christ.
5 We abolish not the Doctrine concerning the communicating of properties of both natures. Aunswere. Yea but they endeuour it. For they apply those properties of his diuine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete, to both natures. J wil be with you to the ende of the world. This they vnderstand of both natures: which is all one, as if, when it is said, Christ God and man was circumcised, one should thus conclude; Therefore the godhead of Christ was circumcised as wel as his flesh. Replie. ⟨p. 785⟩This onelie wee adde; That those Articles belong to them. Aunswere. After this sort all sectes may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures. But they belong hither, and that by a double right. 1. Because they are written of the bodie of Christ. But the body of Christ belongeth to the supper. Therefo•e these Articles also belong hither. For they shew, how Christs bodie is to be ea•en 2 They belong hither, because no Article of faith, is at variaunce with another. So belongeth hither also the Doctrine of iustification because in the upper no other iustice or righteousnes must bee sought for, but by the bloud of Christ.
6 The manner how we eat it, is not to be defined. Answer. They commit a double fault in so saying. 1. When they deny that the manner is to be defined, and so contradict and gain say the Scripture which defineth it, and showeth that it is spiritual, & that there is wrought an union with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost. 2. They themselves define the manner, as it clearly appeareth by their writings.
6 The manner how we eate it, is not to bee defined. Answere. They commit a double fault in so saying. 1. When they denie that the maner is to be defined, and so contradict and gain saie the Scripture which defineth it, and sheweth that it is spiritual, & that there is wrought an vnion with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost. 2. They themselues define the manner, as it clearly appeareth by their writings.
affiming that God doth that which he spake. But they oppugne it making contrary wils to be in God. Replie. Christs bodie hath manie prerogatiues not agreeable to our bodies: as that he was borne of a Virgine, walked on the sea, was at one time and together in the graue, in Hel, and in Par•dise: and passed through the gates when they were fast shut. Aunswere. These examples are partly not matches, & partly false. For this may agree vnto a creature, to walke on the waters, as it did vnto Peter: to passe through the gates shut, as is agreeable to the nature of a spirit. Againe, These examples are not matches nor of the same qualitie with that which is in question. Because these doe not •mply a contradiction. For when hee is saide to bee borne of a Virgine, he is not said withal, not to be borne of a Virgine. But to be both finite and infinite (as they wil haue Christs body who consubstantiate it with the bread) these implie a contradiction. Now it is false, that they saie, that hee passed thorough the gate• shut, whereas the gates might yeelde and o•en vnto him: as also, that he passed through the doore or stone of the graue, when as it is said that the Angell did open it: and lastly, when they saie, that Christes bodie was at once and together in moe places: which they seeme to haue taken out of Austine. But Austine said, That his bodie was in the graue, his soule in hel, and his Godhead eueriewhere.
3 They reason from a circumstance of the time: The same night in which hee was betraied. No man which speaketh seriously, speaketh figuratiuely, Christ instituting his supper spake seriously. Therefore without any figure. Aunswere. I denie the Maior: because by that position no man that speaketh seriously should speak figuratiuely, which is most false. God speaketh in all sacraments, though figuratiuely, yet seriously. I haue earnestly desired (saith Christ) to eate this Passeouer with you. Wherefore I aunswere, that he vseth not iesting or obscure figures. This figure is perspicuous, because it is vsual, and his disciples speak so: Where wilt thou that wee goe, and prepare that thou maiest eate the passouer? It is vsuall also in all sacraments It is forcible and emphaticall, because it expresseth the similitude of the signe and the thing signified, and the certainetie of the coniunction of both in the right vse and administration. Againe we inuert their reason, and say, Because christ spake seriously, therefore he vsed a figure which ⟨p. 780⟩doth well expresse and declare the thing. Replie. Christ sayd, This cup is the new testament. Jn wils and testaments men speake properly. Christ here instituteth a sacrament: therefore, &c. Answere. I denie the Maior, and inuert the reason: for seeing hee would institute a sacrament, therefore hee spake figuratiuely, calling his Supper the new Testament; which is figuratiuely to be vnderstoode for these two reasons. 1. Because otherwise there should be two couenants, the one proper, and the other the supper. 2. Otherwise also they should be shut out from Gods couenant, who cannot come to the supper, and all who came to the supper should be in the couenant. Obiection. Christ saith, In my bloud. Therefore the real bloud of christ is in the supper, and is drunke by the mouth. Aunswere. Wee conclude the contrarie rather by those woordes of Christ. Because the newe testament was made by Christs bloud shed on the Crosse and applied vnto vs by faith, not drunke by the mouth: for otherwise they shoulde bee excluded from the testament and couenaunt, who were not able to come to this sacrament. Replie. There is a great force in the woord, Newe. That which was doone in the old testament typicallie, is done in the new reallie. Aunswere. If they adde, Therefore doone by the mouth of the bodie:
⟨p. 781⟩
or shadowes of the Old Testament. Moreouer, albeit wee haue Christ exhibited in the newe testament, and hee is there borne man, yet notwithstanding it dooth not therefore folow hereof, that his bodie is in the bread, but onely that it is in the new testament.
4 They reason from the consent of the Euangelists, and sain• Paul. Matthew, as Theophylact calculateth, writ his gospel eight yeares after christs assension: Marke, ten yeares: Luke, fifteene yeares: Paul, twentie yeares. And all vse the same words. A speech that is often vttered with the same wordes is not figuratiue. Such is the speech of the Lordes Supper. Therefore it is not figuratiue. Answere. It is false that a speech often vttered in the same words is not figuratiue: because when a figure is conspicuous, knowen, and forcible, as this, it is reteined. Againe, the Euangelists repeat the woordes of Christ, because hee spake figuratiuely. Often, though it bee figuratiue, is this repeated: He shal baptize with the holie Ghost and with fier.
. Moreouer we denie that this speech of Christs Supper was repeated by all in the same wordes. 1. Because Matthew and Mark say, This is my bloud of the new testament. Luke saith, This cup is the new testament in my bloud. 2. Matthew and Marke say, This is my bodie. Luke addeth, which is giuen for you: Paul, which is broken for you. 3. Paul saith, That the bread is the communion of the bodie of Christ. And albeit in this place hee speaketh not purposedly of the Supper, yet hee stirreth vp and exhorteth vnto it. Replie. Jt is the same sense and meaning. Aunswere. The question is not now of the sense and meaning of the woordes, but of the identitie of the wordes, that is, whether they bee the same wordes. Replie. Where there is no mention at all of anie figure, there is no figure. Answere. This is false. For foolish were it, and men shoulde seeme to make shewe and ostentation of their skill and art, if they should say that they vsed a trim figure. And the scripture also often speaketh figuratiuely, and yet doth it not ad withall that it speaketh figuratiuely. Furthermore, they make mention hereof, when they shew, that it consisteth of the nature of the subiect and the attribute. The bodie was borne of the Virgin, crucified, and so forth. The bread is made of meale. Secondly, Christ willeth this to bee done in remembraunce of him: Therefore the
⟨p. 782⟩
breade is called his bodie, as a memoriall of his bodie. Thirdly Matthew and Marke say, This is my bloud of the newe testament. Paul and Luke say, This is the newe testament in my bloud.
⟨p. 783⟩
guiltie discerne it not; Therefore they eate it. Aunswere.
. where no mention is made of corporall eating. 2. Hee speakeih of the presence of Christ, not in the breade, but in vs. 3. Hee prooueth the abiding of Christ in vs by the vse of the Supper, not by any corporal eating. 4. He so describeth it, that hee saith, It shall continue in the life to come. 5. Hee speaketh of that communion, which is proper vnto the Saintes. Nowe this is spiritual; for otherwise it should befall also to the wicked.
