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,…

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.

4. Out of the words of Christ:¹ What then if ye should see the Sonne of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speake unto you are spirit and life. In these words Christ expresly rejecteth all eating of his flesh with our mouths, and overthroweth by two arguments, which wee have heretofore declared: and on the other side he approveth and confirmeth our spirituall eating his flesh. Wherefore we may not forge any corporall eating of Christs body in the Supper, when such a kinde 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 deniall of a part, to the deniall 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 registred in this sixth of John, and is ratified and confirmed by the signes 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 spirituall. 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 bloudy renting onely 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 devoure, to gnaw on with our teeth, to rend asunder? &c. But they say: How can this man give us his flesh to eate? ²Neither doth Christ re-call them from a grosse eating with the mouth, to a subtile kinde of eating with the mouth; but to his ascension into Heaven, which should shortly come to passe, and thereby his body should be far removed from their mouthes, and trained them to a spirituall eating, which is with the heart by faith.

1. 1John 6.62.
2. 2John 6.54.

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.

1. 1Verse 54, 56.

The testimonies of Fathers in this point.

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,

being mindful thereof, in eating, and drinking we Signify, (or Represent) the flesh and blood that were offered up for us. ¹Again, This oblation is the FIGURE OF THE BODY AND BLOOD of our LORD Jesus CHRIST. Augustine: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a TOKEN of his body. Again, The Lord admitted Judas to that banquet, wherein he ministered and gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his body and blood. The same Father saith: Unless Sacraments had a certain likeness of the things, whereof they be Sacraments, without question they were no Sacraments. And in consideration of this likeness, oftentimes they bear the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of CHRIST is AFTER A CERTAIN MANNER the body of Christ: and the Sacrament of Christs blood is his blood: so the Sacrament of faith is faith. ²Again, As then the celestial bread, Christs flesh, is IN SOME SORT called Christs body, whereas indeed it is a Sacrament of Christs body; namely, that visible, palpable, and mortal body which was nailed on the Cross, and the sacrificing of his flesh, done by the hands of the Minister, is called Christs Passion, death, and crucifying, NOT IN THE TRUTH OF THE THING, but in a mystery SIGNIFYING it: So the Sacrament of faith, by which is meant Baptism, is faith. ³Also: These, my brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. That which is seen hath a bodily form: that which is understood, hath a spiritual fruit or benefit. ⁴Chrysostom: This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins; which Christ said, to show that his Passion and Cross was a mystery, and to comfort his disciples. ⁵Theodoret: Our Saviour verily changed the names of the signs and the things signified, and gave the same name to the body, which is proper to the sign; and that to the sign which is proper to the body. The cause of this change is manifest to them that are entered into the first principles of divine mysteries. For he would that they who use the Sacraments should not bend and set their minds on the nature of the things which are seen, but, for the alteration of the names, should believe that alteration which is made through grace.

For he who termed that by name of corn and bread, which is by nature a body, and called himself a vine, he honoured the signs, which are seen, with the title and name of his body and blood, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. Macarius the Monk hath a famous saying to this purpose:¹ Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh, and they who receive the bread which is showed, eat the flesh of Christ spiritually. Other testimonies for briefness sake we omit.

For he who tearmed that by name of corne and bread, which is by nature a body, and called himselfe a vine, he honoured the signes, which are seene, with the title and name of his body and bloud, not by changing the nature, but by adding grace to the nature. Macarius the Monke hath a famous saying to this purpose:¹ Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh, and they who receive the bread which is shewed, eate the flesh of Christ spiritually. Other testimonies for briefenesse sake we omit.

1. 1Hom. 27.

Of Transubstantiation.

Now it is easy to see what we are to think of Transubstantiation, even that it is an impious invention and device of the Papists: which also we will show and prove briefly by divers reasons. But first we must declare in a word what the Papists properly mean by their Transubstantiation. They suppose that by force of Consecration; that is, of uttering these words upon the creatures of bread and wine, This is my body, This is the cup of the new Testament in my blood, the bread and wine is substantially ⟨p. 449⟩converted or turned into the body and blood of Christ, the forms only or accidents of bread and wine remaining; namely, the shape or figure, the heat, the taste, the weight, &c. They therefore call these words of Consecration, operatorie, and effective, able to work and effect the conversion and change: and they say, that the change is fully accomplished in the very last instant of uttering the syllable^* DY, This is my boDY: and then there is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ is present, and is contained under the forms of bread and wine, and is eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or Supper by the mouth of the Communicants. Concerning the manner of the change, it is not agreed on by all. Some say, that the substance of bread and wine is by Transubstantiation changed into the substance of Christs body and blood: so that the bread and wine is essentially made the very body and blood of Christ, the external forms only remaining; and this they term a substantial change, or change of the substance.² Others are of opinion that the substance of bread and wine is not changed, but vanisheth by annihilation, or by being brought to nothing; and that then the substance of Christs body and blood succeedeth in place thereof; so that the substance of Christs body and blood after the consecration, cometh under these forms and accidents, under which before was the substance of the bread and wine: And this they call a formal change, or a change of forms. Lombard in his Sentences expoundeth both these opinions,³ and seemeth to approve the former alone. Howbeit they call both these changes by the name of Transubstantiation.

NOw it is easie to see what we are to think of Transubstantiation, even that it is an impious invention and device of the Papists: which also we will shew and prove briefly by divers reasons. But first we must declare in a word what the Papists properly meane by their Transubstantiation. They suppose that by force of Consecration; that is, of uttering these words upon the creatures of bread and wine, This is my body, This is the cup of the new Testament in my bloud, the bread and wine is substantially

They affirm also that the particle This, in the words of consecration, doth note some indeterminate substance in general (as they use to speak) without quantity or quality, contained under those accidents, so that it demonstrateth unto us neither bread, nor Christs body, but only something contained under the forms and accidents, which before Consecration was bread, but by vigour and force of the words of Consecration, began to be the body of Christ: so that the meaning is on this wise; This is my body, that is,¹ that which is contained under this, or these forms, is my body. Touching the accidents, where they are grounded and seated, whether in the body of Christ, or in the air, or in the surface of the bread and wine, or in nothing, they curiously and diversely dispute; and the common received opinion is, that they are existent without any subject. This is the doctrine of the School-men and all Papists, whereof (as we see) there are two main heads: one of Transubstantiation, another of eating Christs body with the mouth. But each of them is a false profane forgery, utterly repugnant with the words of Christ. As for the later of these, it is overthrown and refuted by the same arguments whereby we have already proved the spiritual eating of Christs body; and Transubstantiation is thus oppugned:

They affirm also that the particle This, in the words of consecration, doth note some indeterminate substance in generall (as they use to speak) without quantity or quality, contained under those accidents, so that it demonstrateth unto us neither bread, nor Christs body, but only something contained under the formes and accidents, which before Consecration was bread, but by vigour and force of the words of Consecration, began to be the body of Christ: so that the meaning is on this wise; This is my body, that is,¹ that which is contained under this, or these formes, is my body. Touching the accidents, where they are grounded and seated, whether in the body of Christ, or in the aire, or in the surface of the bread and wine, or in nothing, they curiously and diversely dispute; and the common received opinion is, that they are existent without any subject. This is the doctrine of the Schoole-men and all Papists, whereof (as we see) there are two maine heads: one of Transsubstantiation, another of eating Christs body with the mouth. But each of them is a false profane forgery, utterly repugnant with the words of Christ. As for the later of these, it is overthrown and refuted by the same arguments whereby we have already proved the spirituall eating of Christs body; and Transsubstantiation is thus oppugned:

1. That which is Christs body in the Supper, remaineth and is not therein transformed, nor reduced to nothing: else Christs body should not remain,¹ nor be present in the Eucharist: But in the bread is Christs body, namely, sacramentally, as before we have made evident demonstrance:) Therefore bread remaineth in the Supper, and is not transformed, or reduced to nothing. The Minor is already proved, and is confirmed,² 1. By the authority of Luke and Paul, in these words: This cup is the new testament: and, The bread is the communion of the body of Christ. 2. Farther proofs are deduced also out of these words thus: What Christ brake, that he called his body: But he brake bread, not some uncertain substance, nor the mere accidents of the bread. Therefore the bread is the body of Christ. Again, The Article THIS demonstrateth and pointeth out either the bread, or the mere accidents, or the body of Christ, or some determinate thing or substance whatsoever. But it concerneth not any indeterminate substance; Because Christ brake not any undeterminate thing, that is, I know not what: but determinately and precisely it is said, He brake bread, it concerneth not Christs visible or invisible body; for his visible body sate and talked with his Disciples: and an invisible body Christ never had: and moreover the Papists themselves confess, that Christs body is not yet present under the form of bread, when the Priest beginneth to pronounce the particle THIS, but then, when once the change is made; the change (say they) is made in the last instant of consecration, at the pronouncing of this ⟨p. 450⟩last syllable DY, in these words, This is my boDY. Lastly, it concerneth not the accidents only of the bread; For Christ brake not bare and mere accidents. Wherefore, the Article THIS intimateth nothing else but the bread; and Christs words. This is my body, have no other meaning then this, This bread is my body.

1. That which is Christs body in the Supper, remaineth and is not therein transformed, nor reduced to nothing: else Christs body should not remaine,¹ nor be present in the Eucharist: But in the bread is Christs body, namely, sacramentally, as before we have made evident demonstrance:) Therefore bread remaineth in the Supper, and is not transformed, or reduced to nothing. The Minor is already proved, and is confirmed,

2.Christ brake bread: but he did not then break his body: therefore the bread is not really his body.

3. Christs body was given for us: The bread was not given for us: Therefore the bread is not really Christs body.

4. Christ saith not, as the Transsubstantiaries say, Under these forms is my body, or, My body is contained under these forms: Therefore the Transsubstantiaries retain not, but pervert Christs words.

4. Christ saith not, as the Transsubstantiaries say, Ʋnder these formes is my body, or, My body is contained under these formes: Therefore the Transsubstantiaries retaine not, but pervert Christs words.

5. Christ said not, Let this be made, but, This is my body. Therefore Christs words turn not the bread into the substance of his body; but they teach only that the bread in this use is Christs body, to wit sacramentally.

5. Christ said not, Let this be made, but, This is my body. Therefore Christs words turne not the bread into the substance of his body; but they teach onely that the bread in this use is Christs body, to wit sacramentally.