The sum of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…The summe of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism,…

2. The second sort of arguments which are taken from the nature of the Sacraments.

1. The very manner and form of speaking yieldeth us a firm and strong argument. Bread is the body of Christ: But bread is not in his own proper substance his body (for by reason hereof have they invented Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation): Therefore it is a figurative speech, even such a one as is usual unto sacraments, and is afore declared in the institution of the Supper.

1. THe very manner and form of speaking yeeldeth us a firm and strong argument. Bread is the body of Christ: But bread is not in his own proper substance his body (for by reason hereof have they invented Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation): Therefore it is a figurative speech, even such a one as is usuall unto sacraments, and is afore declared in the institution of the Supper.

2. In all sacraments, when the name or properties of the things signified are attributed unto the signs, there is not signified the corporal presence of the thing in the signs; but first, a similitude of the things with their signs, and a sealing of them by their signs; then a conjunction and union of the things with their signs in the right use: But in this Sacrament Christ attributeth the names of the things signified (his body and blood) to the signs (the bread and wine) saying, This is my body: This is my blood: Therefore there is not thereby signified a corporal presence of his body.

2. In all sacraments, when the name or properties of the things signified are attributed unto the signes, there is not signified the corporall presence of the thing in the signes; but first, a similitude of the things with their signes, and a sealing of them by their signes; then a conjunction and union of the things with their signes in the right use: But in this Sacrament Christ attributeth the names of the things signified (his body and bloud) to the signes (the bread and wine) saying, This is my body: This is my bloud: Therefore there is not thereby signified a corporall presence of his body.

4. Sacramental phrases and terms are sacramentally to be understood: These words of the Supper, This is my body, This is my blood, are sacramental phrases; for they signify the Sacrament, and attribute the names of the things signified to the signs: Therefore they are to be understood sacramentally. Object. There is no figurative speech expressed in the words of the Supper: Therefore we may not so interpret them. Answ. The Antecedent is false: for Christ himself adjoined a sacramental declaration immediately on them, saying, Do this; that is, eat this bread, and drink this cup: in remembrance of me; that is, that thereby ye may be certified and assured, that my body was given, and my blood was shed for you, and given to you to be meat and drink unto life eternal. Again, This cup is the new Testament in my blood; that is, the seal of the new Testament, and promise of grace now fulfilled in my blood.

4. Sacramentall phrases and termes are sacramentally to be understood: These words of the Supper, This is my body, This is my bloud, are sacramentall phrases; for they signifie the Sacrament, and attribute the names of the things signified to the signes: Therefore they are to be understood sacramentally. Object. There is no figurative speech expressed in the words of the Supper: Therefore wee may not so interpret them. Answ. The Antecedent is false: for Christ himselfe adjoined a sacramentall declaration immediately on them, saying, Doe this; that is, eat this bread, and drink this cup: in remembrance of me; that is, that therby ye may be certified and assured, that my body was given, and my bloud was shed for you, and given to you to be meat and drink unto life eternall. Again, This cup is the new Testament in my bloud; that is, the seale of the new Testament, and promise of grace now fulfilled in my bloud.

5. Whatsoever is not promised in the Gospel, that cannot be sealed unto us by the Supper; for sacraments confirm, exhibit, promise, seal no other thing then the word doth; whence they are termed visible promises, and visible words: In the Gospel is promised no corporal eating;¹ nay, it is peremptorily reproved and condemned by Christ in the Gospel by two arguments: 1. Because not long after he would exalt his body into heaven, and remove it far from the Jews mouths. 2. Because the corporal eating of his flesh profiteth nothing. Neither doth he there distinguish the eating of him into a gross and a finer manner; but simply rejecteth all eating of his flesh with the bodily mouth: We may not therefore forge any corporal eating in the Supper contrary to the Gospel.

5. Whatsoever is not promised in the Gospel, that cannot be sealed unto us by the Supper; for sacraments confirm, exhibite, promise, seal no other thing then the word doth; whence they are termed visible promises, and visible words: In the Gospel is promised no corporall eating;¹ nay, it is peremptorily reproved and condemned by Christ in the Gospel by two arguments: 1. Because not long after hee would exalt his body into heaven, and remove it far from the Jews mouthes. 2. Because the corporall eating of his flesh profiteth nothing. Neither doth he there distinguish the eating of him into a grosse and a finer manner; but simply rejecteth all eating of his flesh with the bodily mouth: We may not therefore forge any corporall eating in the Supper contrary to the Gospel.

1. 1Joh. 6.62, 63.

6. The conceit of a corporal presence and feeding on Christs flesh under the bread, is wholly different and diverse from the formal consideration of a Sacrament: Therefore it is to be rejected. The Antecedent is proved; because it cannot be accounted either for the sign, or the thing signified, of which two every Sacrament wholly consisteth. It is not the sign or sacrament, because it is not object to the senses; and if it were, there is nothing which it might signify. And further, it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing; that is, with the spiritual eating. Neither can it be said to be the thing signified, seeing the Scripture no where speaketh of an essential transfusion, and real commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies, neither can there be any, except we entertain the follies and dreams of Eutychians and Schwenkfeldians: For the sacraments testify of those blessings only, and them only do they seal unto us, which are contained in the promise of the Gospel. Again, it is not the thing signified; because this eating may be without faith, and is common to the godly and ungodly: But the things signified in the sacraments are ⟨p. 441⟩received by faith alone, and of the faithful and godly alone. Besides, if it were the thing signified, none had ever been said, or at any time should have been saved without it. For, in all Sacraments the things signified are the same, and are given to all that are to be saved; because they are the benefits of the Messiah, comprehended in the promise of the Gospel: which benefits are the same unto all, and without them no man is saved: Therefore no place is left for a substantial presence, and mouthy eating of Christs body under the bread, or under the form of bread; and this substantial presence, and mouthy eating, is indeed nothing but a vain name, and Idol in the world. Object. The corporal eating is a sign of the spiritual eating, and a singular confirmation of faith: Therefore Christs body is also a Sacrament or sign; and invisible grace is the thing signified. Answ. The Antecedent is denied: 1. Because Christs flesh under the bread is invisible: Therefore it cannot signify another invisible thing, or strengthen faith. For Sacraments or signs ought to be visible; so that it deserveth not (saith Erasmus) to be called a Sacrament, which is not accomplished by an external sign.

6. The conceit of a corporall presence and feeding on Christs flesh under the bread, is wholly different and diverse from the formall consideration of a Sacrament: Therefore it is to be rejected. The Antecedent is proved; because it cannot be accounted either for the signe, or the thing signified, of which two every Sacrament wholly consisteth. It is not the signe or sacrament, because it is not object to the senses; and if it were, there is nothing which it might signifie. And further, it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing; that is, with the spirituall eating. Neither can it be said to be the thing signified, seeing the Scripture no where speaketh of an essentiall transfusion, and reall commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies, neither can there be any, except wee entertain the follies and dreams of Eutychians and Swenckfeldians: For the sacraments testifie of those blessings only, and them onely doe they seale unto us, which are contained in the promise of the Gospel. Againe, it is not the thing signified; because this eating may be without faith, and is common to the godly and ungodly: But the things signified in the sacraments are

For to this end and use are they given of God, that they may (as it were) effectually show to our outward senses, that which is promised in the Word, and performed by the holy Ghost in our hearts, that they may be visible testimonies and pledges of the promise of grace exhibited and applied. Whence is that saying of Augustine: a Sacrament is a visible word: And,¹ it is a visible form of invisible grace. And, A sign is a thing besides that form which it presenteth to our senses, causing something else by it self to come into the knowledge. And, the signs indeed of divine things are visible, but the things themselves are invisible. And that of Prosper; The sacrifice of the Church consisteth in two things: in the visible form of elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: in the Sacrament or sign, and in the thing of the Sacrament; that is, the body of Christ. Therefore no thing or action which is invisible, insensible, and not natural, can make the nature or appellation of a Sacrament. And consequently they, who will have Christs flesh in, under, or with the bread to be a Sacrament, or will have the bread to be transubstantiated into his flesh, let them show us a visible or sensible eating of it in the Supper, lest they seem to dissent from the ancient Fathers. 2. There must be an analogy and proportion between the sign or Sacrament, and the thing signified, or the thing of the Sacrament. For, Except the Sacraments (saith Augustine) had some similitude of those things, whereof they are Sacraments, they were not verily and Sacraments. Now,² if Christ flesh be also a Sacrament, and the thing of those Sacraments be invisible grace; what proportion then and similitude shall there be between the two Sacraments? but seeing there can be none, it followeth, that Christs flesh may not be called a Sacrament; as being no less the thing it self of the Sacrament, then eternal salvation signified, by way of proportion, by visible bread, as by a sign. Wherefore the sacramental eating, which is done naturally by the mouth, doth not belong unto the body of Christ, considered by it self, in any physical or natural respect: because unto this sacramental eating the external signs only are object in their own nature. S. Augustine demanding how bread is the body of Christ, and wine his blood:

For to this end and use are they given of God, that they may (as it were) effectually shew to our outward senses, that which is promised in the Word, and performed by the holy Ghost in our hearts, that they may be visible testimonies and pledges of the promise of grace exhibited and applyed. Whence is that saying of Austine: a Sacrament is a visible word: And,

These (saith he) brethren, are therefore called Sacraments: because in them one thing is seen, and another thing understood. That which is seen, ¹hath a corporal form; that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit. If then thou wilt understand the body of Christ, here the Apostle speaketh to the faithful, Ye are the body of Christ and his members. If then ye be the body of Christ, and his members, your mystery is set on the table, &c.

These (saith he) brethren, are therefore called Sacraments: because in them one thing is seene, and another thing understood. That which is seene, ¹hath a corporall forme; that which is understood, hath a spirituall fruit. If then thou wilt understand the body of Christ, here the Apostle speaketh to the faithfull, Yee ar the body of Christ and his members. If then yee be the body of Christ, and his members, your mystery is set on the table, &c.

1. 1Serm-ad Infant.

7. The communion of Christ, which is promised in his Word, and sealed in his Sacraments, is not corporal, but spiritual. But the communion of Christ, which is given in the Supper, is the same with that which is promised in the Word and sealed in all other Sacraments: Therefore the communion of Christ in the Supper, is not corporal, but spiritual. The Major is manifest. For, in the Gospel, no other communion is delivered or specified, but that which is spiritual. The Minor also is evident, because the same benefits are proposed in all the promises of the Gospel, which are presented and offered in the Sacraments. For the Sacraments are the visible ⟨p. 442⟩word; because they promise that which the Word promiseth, by visible signs, and are seals of the promise of the same grace.

7. The communion of Christ, which is promised in his Word, and sealed in his Sacraments, is not corporall, but spirituall. But the communion of Christ, which is given in the Supper, is the same with that which is promised in the Word and sealed in all other Sacraments: Therefore the communion of Christ in the Supper, is not corporall, but spirituall. The Major is manifest. For, in the Gospel, no other communion is delivered or specified, but that which is spirituall. The Minor also is evident, because the same benefits are proposed in all the promises of the Gospel, which are presented and offered in the Sacraments. For the Sacraments are the visible ⟨p. 442⟩word; because they promise that which the Word promiseth, by visible signes, and are seales of the promise of the same grace.

8. There is one and the same signification of all the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament; and in them, one and the same communion of Christ. But the signification of all other Sacraments, and their communion is spiritual only: Therefore there is no other in the Supper. The Minor is granted on all sides. The Major is demonstrated by the Apostle in these words;¹ By one spirit we are all baptized into one body: And, All were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all cate the same spiritual meat. Object. There is not the same thing signified of all Sacraments. For, in Baptism, the thing is, The washing by the blood of Christ; in the Supper, The body and blood of Christ. Ans. The thing is not diverse: because it is the same, To be washed by the blood of Christ, and, To drink the blood of Christ: as we have heretofore proved. But the manner of the signifying one and the same thing is diverse: that is, there is a diverse similitude of one and the same thing signified by the signs, or one and the same thing hath a diverse similitude or proportion: Therefore, as in Baptism, so in Circumcision likewise and the Passover, is promised a spiritual thing, not a corporal; and so also here in the Lord's Supper.

8. There is one and the same signification of all the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament; and in them, one and the same communion of Christ. But the signification of all other Sacraments, and their communion is spirituall onely: Therefore there is no other in the Supper. The Minor is granted on all sides. The Major is demonstrated by the Apostle in these words;¹ By one spirit we are all baptized into one body: And, All were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all cate the same spirituall meate. Object. There is not the same thing signified of all Sacraments. For, in Baptisme, the thing is, The washing by the bloud of Christ; in the Supper, The body and bloud of Christ. Ans. The thing is not diverse: because it is the same, To be washed by the bloud of Christ, and, To drink the bloud of Christ: as we have heretofore proved. But the manner of the signifying one and the same thing is diverse: that is, there is a diverse similitude of one and the same thing signified by the signes, or one and the same thing hath a diverse similitude or proportion: Therefore, as in Baptisme, so in Circumcision likewise and the Passeover, is promised a spirituall thing, not a corporall; and so also here in the Lors Supper.

3. The third sort of Arguments, which are deduced from the analogy of faith.

3. The third sort of Arguments, which are deduced from the analogie of faith.

1. Firm and strong reasons are drawn from the Article, which is concerning the truth of Christs humane nature. Christ took a humane nature, like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, and retaineth the same through all eternity, for our comfort and safety: but humane nature is neither infinite, neither can it be in moe places at once, nor visible and invisible both together. For, it is proper unto the Deity only, which is unmeasurable, to be essentially in many, or in all places at once, according to that saying of Scripture:¹ Am not I he which fill heaven and earth? and by this very attribute or property God is distinguished from all creatures. Now, the God-head it self cannot at the same time be both visible and invisible, finite, and infinite, but in its own substance remaineth always invisible, incomprehensible and infinite, else could it not be unchangeable. We may not therefore imagine, that when Christ said, This is my body, his body then sate both visible to them at the Table, and yet was invisible also in the bread: or that now it is both visibly conversant in heaven, and invisibly contained in the bread.

1. FIrme and strong reasons are drawne from the Article, which is concerning the truth of Christs humane nature. Christ took a humane nature, like unto us in all things, sinne only excepted, and retaineth the same through all eternity, for our comfort and safety: but humane nature is neither infinite, neither can it be in moe places at once, nor visible and invisible both together. For, it is proper unto the Deity only, which is unmeasurable, to be essentially in many, or in all places at once, according to that saying of Scripture:¹ Am not I he which fill heaven and earth? and by this very attribute or property God is distinguished from all creatures. Now, the God-head it selfe cannot at the same time be both visible and invisible, finite, and infinite, but in its own substance remaineth alwayes invisible, incomprehensible and infinite, else could it not be unchangeable. We may not therefore imagine, that when Christ said, This is my body, his body then sate both visible to them at the Table, and yet was invisible also in the bread: or that now it is both visibly conversant in heaven, and invisibly contained in the bread.

1. 1

2. From the Article of Ascension: Christ ascended truly; that is, was in his body visibly and locally taken up into heaven, so that his body remained not, nor now remaineth on earth, but in heaven, whence he shall visibly return to judgement. He is not therefore in the bread. Or thus we may urge the reason: Christs body is finite, as being a true body. But it is now in heaven: Therefore Christs body is not in While they beheld him, he was taken up. ¹Seek the things which are above, where Christ is. The Major also is evident. For if the true and very body of Christ be infinite, it is on earth, was no true body of Christ, but apparent and fantastical: because it cannot agree, no not to the God-head it self, to be at one time finite and infinite, sensible and insensible: and so all those things which are spoken of Christ in the Articles of our Belief, should not have been done indeed, but only should have seemed and appeared to be done; and so we should as yet remain in death. Now here are two things to be noted: 1. That by the argument drawn from the ascension, Christs body is not clean taken out of the Supper, as some cavil, but only out of the bread. For the distance of heaven and earth only hindereth the existence of Christs body, both in heaven and in the bread together, but not his presence in the Supper to be spiritual eaten by faith. For our faith in the word of the promise, annexed to the bread and wine, beholdeth and embraceth the body and blood of Christ, and all his benefits there present. 2. That the Argument of the Ascension (not done, but together with the former ⟨p. 443⟩Argument of the truth of his humane nature) overthroweth the opinion of a corporal presence of Christ in the bread. For if Christs humane nature might be every-where, or present in many places; his Ascension could not hinder, but that he might at once be both in heaven and in the bread. But whereas the humane nature is finite, not present in many places, nor every-where: hence it is, that the Argument, borrowed from the Article of his Ascension, presseth most powerfully; and, as in the first Supper, the consequence derived from the property of his humane nature thus; Christs body sits at the Table, Therefore it is not in the bread, or in the mouth of his Disciples, is sound and good: so now we necessarily conclude out of the truth of his Ascension thus;

2. From the Article of Ascension: Christ ascended truly; that is, was in his body visibly and locally taken up into heaven, so that his body remained not, nrr now remaineth on earth, but in heaven, whence he shall visibly returne to judgement. He is not therefore in the bread. Or thus we may urge the reason: Christs body is finite, as being a true body. But it is now in heaven: Therefore Christs body is not in While they beheld him, he was taken up.

Christs body is in heaven, Therefore it is not in the bread, or elsewhere on earth. Object. It is humane reason alone that judgeth Christs corporal presence in the bread contrary to these Articles of faith: Therefore they are not indeed contrary. Answ. We deny the Antecedent. For not reason only, but the Christian faith, and Gods Word reacheth us, that Christs body is a true humane and finite body, and not conversant at once in all, or many places; and that now, since it ascended into heaven, it is not in the earth, but remaineth and abideth in heaven, until he return thence to judge the quick and the dead. That Christs body then should be present at once in heaven and in the bread, is repugnant not to humane reason only, but also to Gods Word. This indeed is a principle uncontroversed,¹ That mans reason in divine matters, oppugning Gods Word, is not to be regarded, but ought to be subject thereunto. Notwithstanding, it is not simply to be cashiered or discharged, no not in controversies of Divinity, as if we were to bring a mere brutish and blockish sense to the sifting of the truth of Gods Word: but we are to use reason aright, to discern thereby truth from falsehood. For to this end was reason given to us men, that we should discern by the light of understanding contradictory opinions; and fully conceiving what is consonant with Gods Word, and what jarreth therewith, should applaud and embrace the one, and reject the other. If this be not grounded and settled in us, there will be no opinion so absurd and impious, there will be nothing in the polluted sinks of all Heretics so filthy and monstrous, which may be confuted by holy Scripture. For Heretics and Deceivers will always except against us, that their opinions impugn not the truth of Gods Word, but that they seem only in mans reason so to do. Repl. The Scripture attributeth to Christs body many properties and prerogatives supernatural, or above and beyond nature, which are not incident to our bodies: as, to walk on the waters, to be transfigured, to be carried up into heaven, to pierce and pass through a stone and closed doors, to be united to the God-head personally, to be made a sacrifice for our sins, &c. Therefore it is no absurdity to attribute unto it presence in heaven and in the bread both at once, or even ubiquity it self. Ans.

Christs body is in heaven, Therefore it is not in the bread, or elsewhere on earth. Object. It is humane reason alone that judgeth Christs corporall presence in the bread contrary to these Articles of faith: Therefore they are not indeed contrary. Answ. We deny the Antecedent. For not reason onely, but the Christian faith, and Gods Word reacheth us, that Christs body is a true humane and finite body, and not conversant at once in all, or many places; and that now, since it ascended into heaven, it is not in the earth, but remaineth and abideth in heaven, untill he returne thence to judge the quick and the dead. That Christs body then should be present at once in heaven and in the bread, is repugnant not to humane reason only, but also to Gods Word. This indeed is a principle uncontroversed,

In the Antecedent are many untruths mingled with some truths. For the penetration of Christs body through the stone, and through the doors, is no where expressed in Scripture: and therefore we deny it. The rest of the prerogatives are there expressed indeed, but they abrogate not the truth of humane nature. For Peter also walked on the waters; and we shall be transformed, and lifted up: but ubiquity and presence of Christs flesh in all, or many places, is no where extant in Scripture, and it suffereth not Christs flesh to be any longer a creature, much less a true body. For, to be every-where, or in divers places at once in its own substance, is the property of the unmeasurable Deity alone: but every creature is finite,¹ and by his finiteness is discerned from his Creator. Now that which is finite, cannot be in moe places then one. Hence it is, that the Scripture and and Doctors of the ancient Church produce this property of presence in many places, as a certain argument of true and sole Divinity: as Christ himself, speaking of himself, saith: The Son of man, ²which is in heaven. And Dydimus saith: The holy Ghost himself, if he were a creature, ³should at least have a circumscribed or limited substance, as all things else which are made: For although the invisible creatures be not circumscribed in place; yet they are finite in the property of their substance. But the holy Ghost being in many, hath no circumscribed or limited substance. Tertullian also saith: If Christ be man only, ⁴how then is he present wheresoever he is called on? sith this is not the nature of man, but of God, To be present in every ⟨p. 444⟩place. Our adversaries therefore thus reasoning, that those prerogatives are the cause of his presence every-where, or in many places, which verily are no causes hereof, commit the fallacy of alleging a false cause. For indeed the reason of those prerogatives, and the ubiquity, are very diverse.

In the Antecedent are many untruths mingled with some truths. For the penetration of Christs body through the stone, and through the doores, is no where expressed in Scripture: and therefore we deny it. The rest of the prerogatives are there expressed indeed, but they abrogate not the truth of humane nature. For Peter also walked on the waters; and we shall be transformed, and lifted up: but ubiquity and presence of Christs flesh in all, or many places, is no where extant in Scripture, and it suffereth not Christs flesh to be any longer a creature, much lesse a true body. For, to be every-where, or in divers places at once in its owne substance, is the property of the unmeasurable Deity alone: but every creature is finite,