A64611:2037
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.
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,1 and by his finitenesse is discerned from his Creatour. 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 himselfe, speaking of himselfe, 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 alledging a false cause. For indeed the reason of those prerogatives, and the ubiquity, are very diverse.
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.
4. Out of the words of Christ:1 What then if ye should see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. In these words Christ expressly rejecteth all eating of his flesh with our mouths, and overthroweth by two arguments, which we have heretofore declared: and on the other side he approveth and confirmeth our spiritual eating his flesh. Wherefore we may not forge any corporal eating of Christs body in the Supper, when such a kind of eating is precisely reproved in the Gospel. Object. The sixth chapter of John treateth not of the Supper: ⟨p. 447⟩Therefore this testimony maketh nought against the eating of Christs body with our mouths instituted in the Supper. Answ. Here our Adversaries deceitfully argue from the denial of a part, to the denial of the whole. This Chapter, we grant, pertaineth not to the Ceremony of the Supper: But hence it followeth not, that simply it pertaineth not to the Supper. For it concerneth the promise; This is my body, which is given for you: because this promise is desumed out of this Christs Sermon registered in this sixth of John, and is ratified and confirmed by the signs of bread and wine. Wherefore it cannot be understood of any other eating of Christs body in the Supper, then of that which is delivered in the sixth of John, which is spiritual. For, bodily eating is in that Sermon condemned. Repl. It is not simply the eating with the mouth that is there condemned, but a Capernaiticall eating. Answ. All eating with the mouth is Capernaiticall. For, a Capernaiticall eating is not a bloody renting only and eating of Christs flesh, and chewing it between the teeth, but simply any eating with the mouth. For the Capernaites say not among themselves: How can this man give us his flesh to devour, to gnaw on with our teeth, to rend asunder? &c. But they say: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 2Neither doth Christ re-call them from a gross eating with the mouth, to a subtle kind of eating with the mouth; but to his ascension into Heaven, which should shortly come to pass, and thereby his body should be far removed from their mouths, and trained them to a spiritual eating, which is with the heart by faith.
5. Out of the same sixth Chapter of John, To eat Christs flesh, and, To drink his blood, signifieth, To believe in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, 1To have Christ dwelling in us: as appeareth, because he attributeth the same effect of eternal life to both; namely, to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him: But in the Supper this eating is authorised: (For no other purpose besides this can be showed in the whole Gospel, for sealing whereof the Supper was instituted.) Therefore, To eat Christs body, and, To drink his blood, is, To believe in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, To have him dwelling in us.
5. Out of the same sixth Chapter of John, To eate Christs flesh, and, To drinke his bloud, signifieth, To beleeve in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, 1To have Christ dwelling in us: as appeareth, because he attributeth the same effect of eternall life to both; namely, to the eating of his flesh, and to faith in him: But in the Supper this eating is authorised: (For no other purpose besides this can be shewed in the whole Gospel, for sealing whereof the Supper was instituted.) Therefore, To eate Christs body, and, To drink his blood, is, To beleeve in Christ, To dwell in Christ, and, To have him dwelling in us.
6. By one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Grecians, 1whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit. Hence we draw two arguments: 1. Such as is the drinking of Christ, such is the eating of him in the Supper. The drinking of him is spiritual: Therefore the eating of him is spiritual. 2. The eating of Christs body, and drinking his blood, is common to all the faithful, even to the Fathers of the Old Testament. For we have all bin made to drink into one spirit. But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithful: (For the Fathers before Christs birth could not, and at this day Infants, and many of ripe years, having not liberty to partake of the Supper, cannot eat his flesh with their mouths.) Wherefore, this mouthy eating of Christs flesh, urged by our Adversaries, is not that true eating which the Gospel promiseth, and which the Supper sealeth.
6. By one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Grecians, 1whether we be bond or free, and have beene all made to drink into one spirit. Hence we draw two arguments: 1. Such as is the drinking of Christ, such is the eating of him in the Supper. The drinking of him is spirituall: Therefore the eating of him is spirituall. 2. The eating of Christs body, and drinking his bloud, is common to all the faithfull, even to the Fathers of the Old Testament. For we have all bin made to drink into one spirit. But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithfull: (For the Fathers before Christs birth could not, and at this day Infants, and many of ripe yeeres, having not liberty to partake of the Supper, cannot eate his flesh with their mouthes.) Wherefore, this mouthy eating of Christs flesh, urged by our Adversaries, is not that true eating which the Gospel promiseth, and which the Supper sealeth.
Unto these arguments drawn out of the sacred Scripture, and the ground of our faith, may be added testimonies of the Fathers, and the purer Church; who, if we look into their writings, we shall find, that they plainly teach the same doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper, which we do. Among many we will produce only some few notable and clear in this point. Irenaeus saith,1 The earthly bread, taking his name from the word of God, is no longer common bread, but becometh the Eucharist or Sacrament, which consisteth of two things; an earthly, and an heavenly thing. Tertullian, The bread which he took and distributed among his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is, The figure of my body.2 Clemens of Alexandria, This is to drink Christs blood, to be partaker of Christs immortality. Cyprian, Neither can his blood, wherewith we are redeemed and justified, seem to be in the Chalice, when the wine faileth in the Chalice, wherein Christs blood is showed, which is spoken of in every Sacrament and testimony of Scripture. Again, the same Father saith, As often as ⟨p. 448⟩we do this, we sharpen not our teeth to bite withal, but we break and part the sanctified bread with a sincere faith, whilst we distinguish and separate that which is divine, from that which is humane, and joining them again after their separation, confess one God and man: yea, we our selves are made his body by this Sacrament, and knit and united to our head by the thing signified by the Sacrament. 3The Canon of the Nicene Council: Again, here also is the Lords Table: Let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but lifting up our minds on high, by faith, let us consider, that on that Table is set the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, which is offered of the Priests without killing: and let us, truly receiving his precious body and blood, believe that they are SIGNS of our resurrection. For therefore we receive not much, but little; thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to satisfy, 4but to sanctify us. Basil: We have set on the Table the figures of the sacred body and blood. Hillary: The bread and wine received, and drunk, effect and work that both we are in Christ,
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.
UNto these arguments drawne out of the sacred Scripture, and the ground of our faith, may be added testimonies of the Fathers, and the purer Church; who, if we looke into their writings, we shall finde, that they plainly teach the same doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper, which we do. Among many we will produce onely some few notable and cleere in this point. Irenaeus saith,1 The earthly bread, taking his name from the word of God, is no longer common bread, but becometh the Eucharist or Sacrament, which consisteth of two things; an earthly, and an heavenly thing. Tertullian, The bread which he tooke and distributed among his Disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body; that is, The figure of my body.2 Clemens of Alexandria, This is to drinke Christs bloud, to be partaker of Christs immortality. Cyprian, Neither can his blood, wherewith we are redeemed and justified, seeme to be in the Chalice, when the wine faileth in the Chalice, wherein Christs bloud is shewed, which is spoken of in every Sacrament and testimony of Scripture. Againe, the same Father saith, As often as ⟨p. 448⟩we doe this, we sharpen not our teeth to bite withall, but we breake and part the sanctified bread with a sincere faith, whilst we distinguish and separate that which is divine, from that which is humane, and joyning them againe after their separation, confesse one God and man: yea, we our selves are made his body by this Sacrament, and knit and united to our head by the thing signified by the Sacrament. 3The Canon of the Nicene Councell: Againe, here also is the Lords Table: Let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us, but lifting up our minds on high, by faith, let us consider, that on that Table is set the Lamb of God taking away the sinnes of the world, which is offered of the Priests without killing: and let us, truely receiving his precious body and bloud, beleeve that they are SIGNES of our resurrection. For therefore we receive not much, but little; thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to satisfie, 4but to sanctifie us. Basil: We have set on the Table the figures of the sacred body and blood. Hillarie: The bread and wine received, and drunke, effect and worke that both we are in Christ, 5and Christ in us. Gregory Nazianzene: The figures of the precious body and bloud of Christ. Ambrose: Because we are delivered by our LORDS death;
