Collection of Discourses, Part 9
A SHORT INTRODVCTION TO the Cōtrouerſie of the Sacramēt of the Lords Supper, vnfolding the ſubſtaunce of the cheifeſt queſtions cōtroverſed or not controuerſed therin b…tweene the profeſſors of the Goſpell.
Compiled and written by D. Dauid Parry.
Foure generall Premiſes.
1 LEt our yong Diuines carry in memorye that the queſtions touching the Ceremonies and rites of the Supper are to bee diſtinguiſhed from the doctrine, which is the promiſe of the Goſpell annexed vntounto the outward and viſible rites.
2 Let them alſo learne to put a difference betweene the queſtions cōtroverſed, and not controuerſed, aſwel concerning the rites, as concerninge the doctrine.
3 Let them knowe that the queſtione controverſed about the rites and ceremonies are not ſo principal, nor of ſuch circumſtance, as the other which concerne the doctrine; and that for the moſt part they may, and ought to be decided in equitie according to the circumſtances of …, place, and perſon: yet with this caueat, that all be done for edification.
4 Let them know moreover, that the maine queſtion▪ touching the doctrine of the Lordes Supper not controverſed hitherto by any are three: and againe on the other ſide the queſtions controverſed are alſo three; wherunto all the reſt may eaſily be refered. Touching both theſe I will verie briefely inſtruct the yonger ſorte.
The three queſtions touching the Lords Supper not called into doubt or controverſy are theſe.
I. What the Supper of the Lord is?
All the profeſſors of the Goſpell agree in this pointe, that the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament of the new Teſtament, inſtituted and ordeined by Chriſt, wherin together with the taking of bread and wine the true body and bloud of Chriſt is receiued, and the communion or participation of Chriſt with all his bleſſinges and benefites is ſealed vp in the heartes of the faithfull beleeuers.
II. What are the endes or vſes of the ſupper inſtituted by Chriſt.
Herein alſo all the profeſſours of the Goſpell agree in one, that this receiuing of the Sacrament confirmeth our faith of the promiſes of grace both becauſe this … the generall and common vſe of all Sacraments whatſoeuer; & alſo becauſe Chriſt himſelfe hath ſaid of this Sacrament,Luc. 22. 19. 20. Doe this is remembraunce of mee. And, This cuppe is the newe Couenant in my bloud.
III. What is giuen & receiued i… the Lords Supper.
In this alſo there is a mutuall conſent of all; that the bread and wine are giuen and receiued viſibly & corporally by the hand and month of the miniſter & communicants: but the body & bloud of our Lord with all the benefits of his paſſion are inviſible and ſpiritually giuen and receiued by them both.
In all theſe, I ſay, there is a ioynt agreement betweene al diuines which profeſſe the Goſpell: as for vaine brablers, whoſe brawles and iaries may not be the meaſure wherby to iudge of the conſent, or controverſes of the churches profeſſing the Goſpell, they neyther agree in theſe, nor in any other.
The three queſtions called into doubt or controuerſie are theſe.
The firſt queſtion.
What is the vnion of the Signe ſignifying or the Thing ſignified in the Lordes ſupper: whether it be Tranſubſtantiation, or Conſubſtantiation, or only a myſticall reference or relation of the one to the other.
To this queſtion we make an anſwere conſonant to the Catholicke faith in three ſeuerall propoſitions, the two of which are Negatiue, and third Affirmatiue.
1 Propoſition.
The Sig…es and the Things are not vnited by Tranſubſtantion, that is, by ſuch a charge as in which the ſubſtance of …he Signe are tranſformed into the ſubſtāce of the Thinges, the accidents onelyonly remaining.
The reaſons of the firſt propoſition.
1 The firſt reaſon is becauſe as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which hauehave a Sacramentary proportiō in the Euchariſt, which the Accidents of bread and wine, & the ſubſtance of the body and bloud of Chriſt can by no meanes hauehave.
2 The ſecond reaſon is deduced out of the wordes of Chriſt who ſaied. This is my body, not, let this bee, or, bee made my body.
3 The third reaſon is becauſe the bread is termed bread both before the action of Conſec…tion, in the action, and after the action.
4 The fourth reaſon is becauſe the ſounder Fathers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Supper; and when they ſpeake by way of Hype…b…le of chāging of the bread, The chāge of the things in the Sacraments …s the cauſe of the change of the nāesthey will be vnderſtood to ſpeake Sacramentally As Theodore… Diolog. 1. witneſſeth ſaying; it was the will of Chriſt that they who vſe the Sacraments ſhould not bend and ſet their mindes on the nature of the thinges which are ſeene, b…t ſhould beleeue that which was made through grace by alteratiō of the names. Here in the ſame diologue he teacheth that we muſt vnderſtand a ſacramentall change in theſe wordes; Chriſt honoured the viſible ſignes with the title and name of his body and bloud, NOT BY CHANGING THE NAME, but by adding grace to the nature.
The ſecond propoſition.
II. The Signes and things ſignified are not vnited by Conſubſtantiation, that is, by a reall Exiſtence of two bodies in the ſame place, or, by the cloſe conveiance of one within the other, ſuch as we ſee is of the corne in a ſacke, of … in a mans purſe, of an Infant in his cradell, or of … in a roundler. For this is a likelihood of things vnited in ſubſtance.
The Reaſons of the ſecond propoſition.
1 The firſt reaſon is, becauſe the words of Chriſt, This is my bodie doe ſignifie vntounto vsus, not vvhere Chriſts body is, neither what it is IN, WITH▪ or VNDERUNDER the bread: but what the bread it ſelfe is▪ and ought to be vntounto the godly in this vſe.
2 The ſecond Reaſon is, becauſe the body of Chriſt is a true inſtrumentall, finite, & viſible body; after his aſcenſion no longer preſent on the earth or every where, but cōverſant and remaining in heaven, even vntil his laſt comming.
3 The third Reaſon is, becauſe the ſounder Fathers do teach that the body and bloud of Chriſt is in the bread & wine, not as in a caue orden, but as in a myſtery, and by a myſtery. Chryſoſtome opers imperfecto Math. Homil 11. ſaith In holied and ſanctified veſſels is conteined not the true body of Chriſt, but the myſterie of Chriſts body.
The third propoſition.
III. The Signes and Things hauehave their coherence in the Lords Supper by a Sacramental vnion. Now this vnion is of like quality with that vnion which is commō to the whole kinde of Sacraments; otherwiſe it ſhould not be a ſacramentall vnion, but by a title of diſtinction ſhould be tearmed, The vnion in the Lords Supper. But in al the other Sacraments their is an vnion of Relation and reſpect, to wit. A myſticall ſignification of the Thinge ſigned by the Signe, a ſealing, exhibiting, & receiving thereof after a lawful vſe, which is not without the faith and repentance of thē which approach vntounto it to vſe it.
The reaſon… of the third propoſition.
1 The firſt is drawne from the nature of the whole kinde, in this ſort;
There is ſuch an vnion in all Sacraments;
Therefore in the Supper alſo.
The Antecedent or former propoſition of this argumēt is manifeſt out of the definition & principal end of the Sacraments.
2 The ſecond is framed on this manner;
The bread is the body of Chriſt either in the truth of the thing (as Auguſtine according to Proſpers opinion ſpeaketh) or in a myſterie ſignifying it.
But it is not the body of Chriſt eſſentially & … the truth of the thing▪ becauſe there is no Tranſubſtantiation.
Therefore it is the body of Chriſt in a myſterie ſo ſignifying.
3 The third reaſon is, becauſe al the arguments by which the ſacramentall ſpeech in the wordes of the Supper is proved are hithervnto belonging. For a ſacramental vnion requireth ſacramentall phraſes and termes.
4 The fourth is, becauſe we hauehave the teſtimonies of the Fathers, that the bread is a ſigne, figure and ſacrament of the body of Chriſt no longer abſent, but preſent; and yet preſent not in the outward and viſible elements of bread and wine, but in the worde ioyned with them; preſent, I ſay, not to the mouth, but to the heart; not locally and in place, but myſtically, and ſpiritually.
The obiection of Papiſts for their Tranſubſtantiation drawne out of the words of the Supper.
This which Chriſt gaue,Obiect. and the Preiſt conſecrateth is the body of Chriſt;
Therefore it is not bread.
The argument holdes from the rule of thinges different; as if a man ſhould ſay, This is a man, therfore it is not an Oxe.
Wee deny that this argument is framed, as you ſay,Aunſ. from the inducing of one ſpeciall by the remouing of the contrarie of the ſame kinde: becauſe it is rather a faulty proceſſe in argumentation frō the inducing of a ſacramētal reſpect which is but an Accident, to the diſplacing and deniall of the ſubiect & ſubſtance; ſuch as this is, if I ſhould ſay, This man is a Father; Therefore he is not a man. For ſo they argue, This bread is the body of Chriſt therefore it is not bread. There is therefore in this argument a Fallacie of Accident no leſſe abſurd the if you ſhould thus conclude▪ This thing is a table▪ therefore it is not wood. For although the body of Chriſt bee not the forme or Accident of bread… yet the Relation and reſpect which the bread hath by vertue of the promiſe vntounto the body of Chriſt is the forme of a Sacrament: Whence it is a weake kind of reaſoning to ſay; A doue is the holy Ghoſt; therefore it is no longer a doue Circumciſion is the couenant of God; therfore it is no longer Circumciſion. The cupp is the New Teſtament; therfore it is no longer a cuppe.
The anſwere to all the teſtimonies of the Fathers which the Papiſts alleadge for the change of the ſignes is common; that they are all to hee vnderſtood of the Sacramentall not of an eſſentiall and reall mutat on, which is apparant out of the conſent of foundeſt Fathers in this point of the ſacrament.
II. The ſecond queſtion.
Howe both the ſignes, & the heauenly things ſignified are exhibited or receiued in the Lords Supper.
This queſtion is in controuerſie betweene vsus both with the Papiſts & the Vbiquitaries, becauſe both of them are of opinion that the things being preſent in their ſignes, or vnderunder the ſhewes of the ſignes are covertly and miraculouſly caried vp and downe in the hands of the miniſters, hādled by them, and put into the mouthes of the Communicants. We contrariwiſe teach, that the thinges with their ſignes are both togither exhibited and receiued with their ſignes in the lawful vſe of the Supper, but in a diuers manner. For the ſignes are handled by the Miniſters, and takē by the mouth of the Communicants: But the things themſelues are given by Chriſt our high Prieſt, & received by faith. This point may in like ſort with the former be expreſſed in three propoſitiōs; two negatiue, and one affirmatiue.
1. The firſt propoſition.
The things ſignified, that is, the bodie and bloude of Chriſt, are neither handled, nor reached out by the hand of the Miniſters to be receaved corporallie in the ſignes.
The Reaſons of this firſt propoſition.
1 The firſt reaſon is collected negatiuelie from the whole kinde of Sacraments, thus,
In no Sacrament the Miniſters handle or beſtowe things ſpirituallie ſignified.
Therefore neither in the Lords Supper doe they handle the thing ſpiritually ſignified.
The Antecedent is proved both by an induction or inſtance in every Sacrament, which is evident by the adverſaries owne confeſſion; and alſo the proportion betweene the Sacrament, and the worde. Marc. 1. I am the voice crying &c. Ioh. 1. I baptiſe with water; he which cōmeth after me ſhall baptiſe with the holie Ghoſt, and with fire. 1. Cor. 3. 7. Neither he that watereth, nor hee that planteth is anie thing, but God which giveth the encreaſe. Therefore it holdeth alike alſo in the Sacraments, which are the viſible word.
2 The ſecond reaſon is this.
The things ſignified are not corporally, IN, WITH, or VNDERUNDER the ſignes, as hath beene ſhewed.
Therefore they are not handled, or diſtributed by the hand of the Miniſter.
3 The third reaſon proceedeth thus,
The things ſignified in the Supper are spirituall, which coupled with their ſignes are offered in the promiſe of grace.
But the promiſe of grace is not handled with hands &c.
4 The fourth reaſon is the teſtimonies of Fathers; as Chryſoſt. Sermone de Euch. …. Thinke not whē yee come to theſe myſteries, that yee receiue the Lordes body at the hands of a mā, that is to ſay the Miniſter; with many other ſuch like places.
II. The ſecond propoſition.
The things ſignified I meane, the body and bloude of the Lord are not received WITH, IN, and VNDERUNDER the bread and wine by the mouth of the body.
Reaſons of the ſecond propoſition.
1 The firſt is, becauſe they are not bodily preſent with, in, and vnderunder the ſignes as hath beene ſhewed queſt. … propoſ 2.
2 The ſecōd i… becauſe they paſſe into the belly which is the receptacle appointed for bodily meates 1. Cor. 6. 13. For all which entereth in at the mouth, goeth downe into the belly Mat. 13.
3. The third is becauſe the promiſe, wherin the things are offered, is not receiued by the mouth.
III The third propoſition.
The thinges ſignified, ſuppoſe, The lordes bodie and bloud are receiued ſpritually by faith.
1 The firſt reaſon is deriued from the conditiō of the whole kinde; becauſe in Sacramēts the things ſignified are receiued by faith: by which alone as we are iustified; ſo we receiue all the benefites of the new Teſtament.
2 The ſecond is, becauſe the promiſe of grace is not apprehended but by faith. Nowe the communion of the body and bloud of Chriſt is the promiſe of grace. See Vrſin. Volum. 1. Pag. 103.
The argument of a certeine famous Disputant framed in defence of the eatinge Chriſts body with our mouth.
Ob. To whatſoeuer inſtrument the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper appertaineth, to the ſame the eating of the other ought to appertaine.
But the eating of one body, that is the bread, in the Lordes Supper appertaineth to the mouth.
Therefore the eating of the other, which is Chriſts body, appertaineth to the ſame.
Anſ. 1 The Maior is true in ſuch meates as are naturally conioined, of containe one the other, of the which ſort is a a Pye. Now the bread and the body of Chriſt are not ſo ioined togither. In theſe then it is falſe.
The Maior thus he proues;
Whoſoeuer includeth in the ſame worde of eating both bread and wine, & the body & blood of Chriſt affirmeth alſo that they are both receiued vvith the ſame inſtrument.
But Chriſt includeth both bread & wine, & his body & bloud in one & the ſame worde of eating.
Therefore CHRIST affirmeth that they are both received with the ſame inſtrumēt of eating.
Anſ. 1. The proofe of the Maior faileth, becauſe an vniuerſal affirmatiue ſhould be concluded in Barbara.
2 The Maior beggeth that which is in controverſie and is denyed. The falſeneſſe thereof appeareth Iohn the third, where CHRIST includeth in the ſame worde of birth the ſpirit and the fleſh: and yet it followeth not that they both are borne after the ſame manner, or by the ſame inſtrument.
3 The Minor alſo is falſe. For this worde of eating is referred to the hollyed breade, not to the bodie, but by way of conſequence. For it properly pertaineth vntounto that, which the Lord tooke in his handes and brake, which was bread, and not his body. This reaſon is vvorthy the marking for that according to the Papiſtes and ſuch as ſimplie mainetaine Conſubſtantiation the bodie of CHRIST is not there before the wordes of conſecration (as they call them) are pronounced, but beginneth to bee there in the very laſt inſtante of the pronouncing of theſe wordes, This is my bodie. But according to the Vbiquitaries, which are as it were chymicall conſubſtantiators, it is there indeede, as in any other breade, but it is not yet edible vntill after conſecration. CHRIST then commaunded not to eate that with our mouth in the breade, which as yet was not in the breade, or as yet was not edible.
Then againe he proues the Maior of his former ſyllogiſme.
A word having but one ſignification is to be taken but in one.
But eating both of the breade and of the body of Chriſt hath but one ſignification, viz. with the mouth.
It is then to bee taken in one ſignification of both.
Anſ. 1. Heere againe faileth the proofe of the Maior, being an vniverſall affirmatiue, which ſhould hauehave bin concluded in Barbara.
2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in cō troverſie.
The third queſtion.
VntoUnto whom theſe things are offered, and of wh… they are receiued.
Heereunto is there made aunſwere in tvvo Propoſitions, both being affirmatiue.
1. Propoſition.
The things ſignified are receiued by the faithful alōe 1 Reaſon. Becauſe only they that beleeue receiue the promiſes by faith.
2 Reaſon. Becauſe they alone that beleeue hauehave the ſpirit of Chriſt, from the which his life-giuing fleſhe cannot be ſeparated.
3 Reaſon. Becauſe in them onelyonly that beleeue, Chriſt remaineth, and they in Chriſt Eph. 3 17.
4 Reaſon. Becauſe they alone that beleeue receiue and hauehave life. Ioh 3 & 6.
2. Propoſition.
The vngodly comming without faith receiue the ſignes without the things themſelues.
Looke the reaſons as they are ſet downe in the Church pag 58….
Looke the obiections for the eating of the vngod…y, Ibid. pag. 5…2.