A64611:2032
The sum of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism, and then afterwards more enlarged by a sound and judicious exposition, and application of the same : wherein also are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment have been, or are controversed in divinity / first Englished by D. Henry Parry, and now again conferred with the best and last Latin edition of D. David Pareus, sometimes Professor of Divinity in Heidelberg ; whereunto is added a large and full alphabetical table of such matters as are therein contained ; together with all the Scriptures that are occasionally handled, by way either of controversy, exposition, or reconciliation, neither of which was done before, but now is performed for the readers delight and benefit ; to this work of Ursinus are now at last annexed the Theological miscellanies of D. David Pareus in which the orthodoxall tenets are briefly and solidly confirmed, and the contrary errors of the Papists, Ubiquitaries, Antitrinitaries, Eutychians, Socinians, and Arminians fully refuted ; and now translated into English out of the original Latin copy by A.R.The summe of Christian religion, delivered by Zacharias Ursinus first, by way of catechism, and then afterwards more enlarged by a sound and judicious exposition, and application of the same : wherein also are debated and resolved the questions of whatsoever points of moment have been, or are controversed in divinitie / first Englished by D. Henry Parry, and now again conferred with the best and last Latine edition of D. David Pareus, sometimes Professour of Divinity in Heidelberge ; whereunto is added a large and full alphabeticall table of such matters as are therein contained ; together with all the Scriptures that are occasionally handled, by way either of controversie, exposition, or reconciliation, neither of which was done before, but now is performed for the readers delight and benefit ; to this work of Ursinus are now at last annexed the Theologicall miscellanies of D. David Pareus in which the orthodoxall tenets are briefly and solidly confirmed, and the contrary errours of the Papists, Ubiquitaries, Antitrinitaries, Eutychians, Socinians, and Arminians fully refuted ; and now translated into English out of the originall Latine copie by A.R.
London: printed by James Young, 1645
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.
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.
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;
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,
3. From the Article of the communion of Saints: 1. Such is the communion of Saints with Christ now, as it was of old ever since the beginning, and shall be ever hereafter; as well of those who use the Sacraments, as of them who are by necessity excluded from them.1 For there is but one only communion of Saints with Christ; because we are all one body with Christ. But this communion of Saints with Christ was always spiritual: as the Apostle doth show; He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us; because he hath given us of his spirit. He is the Vine, we are the branches: He is the Head, we are the members: He is the Bridegroom, and we (with the whole Church) are his Spouse. Or the argument may be thus formed: All the Saints have the same communion with Christ, both in the Old and New Testament (as well they, who have power to approach and partake of the Supper, as they who have not:) and we cannot eat Christ any otherwise, then his Disciples did eat him in the first Supper. But they did eat him spiritually: Therefore we eat him also spiritually. Out of the self same Article we thus argue: 2. Such is our eating of Christ, as is his abiding in us. But this is spiritual: Therefore our eating of him is spiritual. The Major is out of question, because he is therefore eaten, that he may remain in us, and we in him; not that being once eaten, he should forthwith vanish away;2 He which cateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. The Minor, namely, that Christs abiding in us is spiritual, is sufficiently proved and perceived by this, in that such is his abiding in us, as is his Fathers:3 If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and will dwell with him. But how doth the Father dwell in us or abide with us? Truly by his holy Spirit: Therefore Christ also so abideth with us, or dwelleth in us.4 Hereunto belong those sayings: By this we know that he dwelleth in us, and we in him, because he hath given us of his Spirit. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. I am the Vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him,
because, as touching his humane nature,1 he saith, Me ye shall not have always: Therefore he is not eaten of us corporally; nay, he cannot be eaten of us corporally, except he be in us corporally, and that also perpetually.
because, as touching his humane nature,1 he saith, Me ye shall not have alwayes: Therefore he is not eaten of us corporally; nay, he cannot be eaten of us corporally, except he be in us corporally, and that also perpetually.
4. From the Article of remission of sins. If Christ be corporally in the bread, and be reached out and delivered unto us by the hand of the Minister, then we are to crave remission of sins at Gods hands, for his sake, who is in the bread, and whom the Minister handleth, whether the bread still remain together with him, or no. For remission of sins is most especially to be craved then, when we celebrate the Supper. So then every communicant must thus pray: I beseech thee, O heavenly Father, to be gracious and merciful unto me for this thy Sons sake, who is here present in this bread, and whom the Minister handleth, and whom I eat with my mouth: But this is that horrible Idolatry, which is practised in the Popish Mass, which without doubt is so abominable in the sight of God, that it were better for us to suffer a thousand deaths, then once commit the same. For the Gospel teacheth us to beg of God remission of sins, not for that Christs sake, who is in the bread, and is carried about in the Ministers hands, and eaten with mens mouths: but for that Christs sake, who suffered and died for us, who is now in heaven at the right hand of his Father, and maketh intercession for us. So then thus we reason, That which establisheth the horrible Idolatry of the Mass, is to be avoided of the true professors of the Gospel: But the corporal presence of Christ, and the eating of him with our mouths in the bread, establisheth the horrible Idolatry of the Mass: Therefore it is to be avoided by all true professors of Christs Gospel.
4. From the Article of remission of sinnes. If Christ be corporally in the bread, and be reached out and delivered unto us by the hand of the Minister, then we are to crave remission of sinnes at Gods hands, for his sake, who is in the bread, and whom the Minister handleth, whether the bread still remaine together with him, or no. For remission of sinnes is most especially to be craved then, when we celebrate the Supper. So then every communicant must thus pray: I beseech thee, O heavenly Father, to be gracious and mercifull unto me for this thy Sonnes sake, who is here present in this bread, and whom the Minister handleth, and whom I eat with my mouth: But this is that horrible Idolatry, which is practised in the Popish Masse, which without doubt is so abominable in the sight of God, that it were better for us to suffer a thousand deaths, then once commit the same. For the Gospel teacheth us to begge of God remission of sinnes, not for that Christs sake, who is in the bread, and is carried about in the Ministers hands, and eaten with mens mouths: but for that Christs sake, who suffered and died for us, who is now in heaven at the right hand of his Father, and maketh intercession for us. So then thus we reason, That which establisheth the horrible Idolatry of the Masse, is to be avoided of the true professors of the Gospel: But the corporall presence of Christ, and the eating of him with our mouths in the bread, establisheth the horrible Idolatry of the Masse: Therefore it is to be avoided by all true professors of Christs Gospel.
5. Unto the former may be adjoined also arguments taken from the sacrifice and adoration of Christ. Wherefore Christ is present corporally, whether it be after a ⟨p. 445⟩visible or invisible manner, there he is so to be adored, to wit, by our minds, and the motions of our bodies converted and turned thither. But he is not thus to be adored in the Supper: Therefore he is not present in the Supper corporally, either in the bread, or in the place of bread. The Minor, That he is not to be adored in the Supper, is easily proved: because in the New Testament since Christs ascension it hath not been, nor is lawful to tie and bind invocation to any certain place or thing, without the express command and permission of God, except we will commit open Idolatry. For all adoration, bound and restrained to any certain place or thing on earth, is abrogated and cancelled by Christ. The hour cometh, 1when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not; we worship that which we know: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: For the Father requireth even such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and truth. Again, if Christ be so to be adored and worshipped in the Supper, by our minds and motions of body converted unto the bread, that whole oblation and sacrifice should consist in the hands of sacrificing Mass-Priests, because they offer the Son unto the Father, to obtain remission of sins: and so were his crucifying to be re-iterated. Object. Christ commanded not himself to be offered or adored, but to be eaten: Therefore we establish not the Papists offering up of Christ to his Father, or their worshipping of him in the bread, by that corporal presence which we uphold. Ans. This their reasoning is two ways faulty: First, they beg that which is in question, whilst they say, that Christ commanded us to eat him in the bread: for this is no where found in Scripture. 2. They shift and seek to slide from the question, in averring, that Christ commanded not himself to be adored: for we have a general precept of adoring Christ in these words;2 He is the Lord thy God, and thou shalt worship him. And let all the Angels of God worship him.
This general precept, without any special exception or expectation of any particular injunction, should no less bind us all unto obedience, and to the adoring of Christ in the bread, if we had any evident proof of his invisible existence therein, than if we beheld him present with our eyes. Thus Thomas expecteth not some special express warrant, but doth well in worshipping towards the place where he seeth Christ standing, saying; My Lord, and my God. Wherefore,1 as long as the opinion of corporal presence standeth, so long the Papists idolatrous adoration and oblation, and their whole Mass must needs stand also. For the Papists themselves will not have, that we understand their offering of Christ in the Mass of any slaughtering or murdering him, but only of a public showing him being there corporally present, and of a craving and obtaining remission of sins for his sake, whom the Priests bear in their hands, and present unto God the Father.
This generall precept, without any speciall exception or expectation of any particular injunction, should no lesse binde us all unto obedience, and to the adoring of Christ in the bread, if we had any evident proofe of his invisible existence therein, than if we beheld him present with our eyes. Thus Thomas expecteth not some speciall expresse warrant, but doth well in worshipping towards the place where he seeth Christ standing, saying; My Lord, and my God. Wherefore,1 as long as the opinion of corporall presence standeth, so long the Papists idolatrous adoration and oblation, and their whole Masse must needs stand also. For the Papists themselves will not have, that we understand their offering of Christ in the Masse of any slaughtering or murthering him, but only of a publique shewing him being there corporally present, and of a craving and obtaining remission of sinnes for his sake, whom the Priests beare in their hands, and present unto God the Father.
1. Like phrases have a like sense and interpretation. But all these phrases are accounted for like; namely, for sacramental forms of speech, wherein the names or proper effects of the things signified, are attributed to the sign: as, Circumcision is the Govenant of God. The Lamb is the Passover of the Lord. 1The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Levitical sacrifices are an expiation or doing away of sin. The blood of sacrifices is the blood of the Covenant. The covering of the Ark is the mercy seat. The Rock was Christ. The bread is the body of Christ. The cup is the New Testament. Baptism washeth away sin. Baptism is the washing of the new birth. Baptism saveth us, &c. Therefore their interpretation is alike. Now God himself interpreteth some of them thus; Circumcision is a sign of the Covenant. The Lamb is a sign and memorial of the Passover. The Sabbath is a sign of the Covenant: Therefore we may justly interpret the rest on the same manner. The Levitical sacrifices signify the atonement for sins, made by the Messiah. The blood of sacrifices is a Sacrament ⟨p. 446⟩or sign confirming the Covenant; or a sign of Christs blood, whereby the Covenant was established. The covering of the Ark signifieth the Mercy-seat. The Rock signifieth Christ. The bread is a Sacrament of the body of Christ. The cup is a Sacrament sealing the new Covenant. Baptism is a Sacrament of the washing away of sins, and of our regeneration and salvation.
1. LIke phrases have a like sense and interpretation. But all these phrases are accounted for like; namely, for sacramentall formes of speech, wherein the names or proper effects of the things signified, are attributed to the signe: as, Circumcision is the Govenant of God. The Lamb is the Passeover of the Lord. 1The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Leviticall sacrifices are an expiation or doing away of sinne. The bloud of sacrifices is the bloud of the Covenant. The covering of the Arke is the mercy seate. The Rock was Christ. The bread is the body of Christ. The cup is the New Testament. Baptisme washeth away sinne. Baptisme is the washing of the new birth. Baptisme saveth us, &c. Therefore their interpretation is alike. Now God himselfe interpreteth some of them thus; Circumcision is a signe of the Covenant. The Lamb is a signe and memoriall of the Passeover. The Sabbath is a signe of the Covenant: Therefore we may justly interpret the rest on the same manner. The Leviticall sacrifices signifie the attonement for sinnes, made by the Messias. The bloud of sacrifices is a Sacrament
2. As the cup is the New Testament, so is the blood of Christ the New Testament. The cup is the New Testament Sacramentally; that is, it is a sign of the New Testament: Therefore Christs blood is a sign of the New Testament. The Major is apparent, because without doubt the words of Luke and Paul, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; and the words of Matthew and Mark, This is my blood of the New Testament, have all one meaning. The Minor is proved before in the first argument, and cannot be taken otherwise. For the New Testament is no external thing or ceremony, but a free reconciliation with God, promised in the Gospel, through the blood and death of Christ. The cup then is either the thing promised, or the seal of the promise; but it is not the promise, nor the thing promised: Therefore it is the seal of the promise.
2. As the cup is the New Testament, so is the bloud of Christ the New Testament. The cup is the New Testament Sacramentally; that is, it is a signe of the New Testament: Therefore Christs bloud is a signe of the New Testament. The Major is apparent, because without doubt the words of Luke and Paul, This cup is the New Testament in my bloud; and the words of Matthew and Marke, This is my bloud of the New Testament, have all one meaning. The Minor is proved before in the first argument, and cannot be taken otherwise. For the New Testament is no externall thing or ceremony, but a free reconciliation with God, promised in the Gospel, through the bloud and death of Christ. The cup then is either the thing promised, or the seale of the promise; but it is not the promise, nor the thing promised: Therefore it is the seale of the promise.
3. The bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is it not the communion of the body of Christ? As bread is the communion of the body of Christ, so also it is the body of Christ. The reason is clear, because Pauls words and Christs have both one meaning; seeing Paul interpreteth Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or sign of our spiritual communion with Christs body. For properly and literally, bread cannot be termed a communion: Therefore, bread also is Christs body sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or sign of Christs body. Now that the communion or communication of Christs body is spiritual, is thus proved: 1. Paul speaketh of such a communion, as whereby we being many, are made one bread, one body. But we being many, are one body spiritually: Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is spiritual. 2. The communion of Christ, whereof he speaketh, cannot stand with the communion of Devils:1 Ye cannot (saith he) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of the Devils. The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency, as some fondly tell us,2 but from an impossibility: as that of Christ, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Where the words [Greek or Hebrew], ye are not able; or, ye have no possibility, are likewise used, as well as in this place:3 and as that of the same Apostle else-where; What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the Believer with the Infidel? 3. This communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, is spiritually expounded in Scripture,4 Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. If we say, that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lye, and do not truly. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin. Neither do we in the Creed believe any other communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, but that which is spiritual. 5
And a little after, Why call I it communion? Yea, we are the self-same body of Christ. What is the bread? even the body of Christ. What are they made, who receive the body of Christ? not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread is kneaded of many grains, so we also are joined with Christ.
And a little after, Why call I it communion? Yea, we are the selfe-same body of Christ. What is the bread? even the body of Christ. What are they made, who receive the body of Christ? not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread is kneaded of many graines, so we also are joyned with Christ.
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. 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 phantasticall: because it cannot agree, no not to the God-head it selfe, 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 Beliefe, 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 cleane taken out of the Supper, as some cavill, 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 spirituall eaten by faith. For our faith in the word of the promise, annexed to the bread and wine, beholdeth and imbraceth the body and bloud 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 corporall 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;
3. From the Article of the communion of Saints: 1. Such is the communion of Saints with Christ now, as it was of old ever since the beginning, and shall be ever hereafter; as well of those who use the Sacraments, as of them who are by necessity excluded from them.1 For there is but one only communion of Saints with Christ; because we are all one body with Christ. But this communion of Saints with Christ was alwayes spirituall: as the Apostle doth shew; He that is joyned to the Lord, is one spirit. Hereby know we, that we dwell in him, and he in us; because he hath given us of his spirit. He is the Vine, we are the branches: He is the Head, we are the members: He is the Bridegroome, and we (with the whole Church) are his Spouse. Or the argument may be thus formed: All the Saints have the same communion with Christ, both in the Old and New Testament (as well they, who have power to approach and partake of the Supper, as they who have not:) and we cannot eat Christ any otherwise, then his Disciples did eat him in the first Supper. But they did eat him spiritually: Therefore we eat him also spiritually. Out of the selfe same Article we thus argue: 2. Such is our eating of Christ, as is his abiding in us. But this is spirituall: Therefore our eating of him is spirituall. The Major is out of question, because he is therefore eaten, that he may remaine in us, and we in him; not that being once eaten, he should forthwith vanish away;2 He which cateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him. The Minor, namely, that Christs abiding in us is spirituall, is sufficiently proved and perceived by this, in that such is his abiding in us, as is his Fathers:3 If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and will dwell with him. But how doth the Father dwell in us or abide with us? Truly by his holy Spirit: Therefore Christ also so abideth with us, or dwelleth in us.4 Hereunto belong those sayings: By this we know that he dwelleth in us, and we in him, because he hath given us of his Spirit. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. I am the Vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, 5the same bringeth forth much fruit. 3. Christ abideth in us perpetually: Therefore that abiding or presence is not corporall:
3. The bread which we breake (saith the Apostle) is it not the communion of the body of Christ? As bread is the communion of the body of Christ, so also it is the body of Christ. The reason is cleere, because Pauls words and Christs have both one meaning; seeing Paul interpreteth Christ. But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or signe of our spirituall communion with Christs body. For properly and literally, bread cannot be termed a communion: Therefore, bread also is Christs body sacramentally; that is, it is a Sacrament or signe of Christs body. Now that the communion or communication of Christs body is spirituall, is thus proved: 1. Paul speaketh of such a communion, as whereby we being many, are made one bread, one body. But we being many, are one body spiritually: Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is spirituall. 2. The communion of Christ, whereof he speaketh, cannot stand with the communion of Divels:1 Ye cannot (saith he) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the Divels: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and of the table of the Divels. The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency, as some fondly tell us,2 but from an impossibility: as that of Christ, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Where the words 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, ye are not able; or, ye have no possibility, are likewise used, as well as in this place:3 and as that of the same Apostle else-where; What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the Beleever with the Infidell? 3. This communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, is spiritually expounded in Scripture,4 Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. If we say, that we have fellowship with him, and walke in darkenesse, we lye, and do not truely. But if we walke in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne. Neither doe we in the Creed beleeve any other communion of the Saints with Christ, and Christ with the Saints, but that which is spirituall. 54. Lastly, Chrysostome interpreteth Pauls words of a spirituall communion. Why said he not participation? That he might manifest unto thee somewhat more excellent then it, to wit, the strongest and mightiest union that can be.
