The Sum of Christian Religion 2, Part 2 · Subpart 37 · Section 4
6 What is the ſenſe or meaning of the words of the inſtitution of our Lordes ſupper.
HEre are both thoſe very odious queſtions conteined concerning the ſenſe of Chriſtes woords in his ſupper.The Tranſubſta… and Conſubſtantiaries relie not on the ſimple meaning of Chriſtes words. The Tranſubſtantiaries together with the Conſubſtantiaries doe boſt and glorie, that they vnderſtand the woords of Chriſt ſimply and aright. But neither perfourme that, which they brag and boaſt of. For that is the true ſimplicity and propriety of the woord, whereunto, for the iuſt vnderſtanding and interpretations thereof, nothing is to bee added, neither ought to be taken from it, neither any thing altered. For as many as hold that the body of Chriſt is With, Jn, or VnderUnder the breade, they adde vntounto the woordes of Chriſt, and depart from true ſimplicity. For if that which Chriſt ſaid is ſimply to be reteined, that is not to be admitted which he ſaid not, as is, The bread is both bread and the body of Chriſt; but ſimply this only, The bread is the body of chriſt. He ſaid not, My body is with, or in, or vnderunder the bread▪ or, the bread is both bread and my body together: neither added he, as theſe ad of their owne, really, ſubſtantially, corporally; but he vttered theſe bare words of the bread, This is my body. Neither hauehave the Traunſubſtantiaries their opinion drawen from the woordes of Chriſt ſimply vnderſtoode, namely, that of the bread is made the body of Chriſt, or, the bread is chaunged into the bodie of Chriſt. For this is their owne forgery, and inuention. For Chriſt ſaid not, That the bread was now made, or was a making, or ſhould be made, but ſimply ſaid, The bread is his body: where no chaunge coulde come betweene, ſo that the words of chriſt be ſimply vnderſtood. Therefore falſely doe they perſuade the people, that they ſimply reſt on the propriety of chriſtes woords, when as manifoldly and moſt farre they ſwarue and depart from it. Wherefore the true ſenſe and meaning of the woordes is diligently to be conſidered. The holy Euangeliſtes Matthew, Marke, and Luke doe moſt ſpecially of al others deſcribe the inſtitution of the Lords ſupper, and beſides them the Apoſtle alſo declareth it no leſſe plainly and luculen…ly; who thus ſpeaketh, 1. Corint. 11. verſ. 23.24.25.26. I hauehave receiued of the Lord, that which J alſo hauehave deliuered vntounto you, that the Lord Ieſus in the night that he was betraied, tooke bread: And when he had giuen thanks he brake it, and ſaid, Take, eate: this is my body which is broken for you; this doe yee in remembraunce of me. After the ſame maner alſo he took the cup, when he had ſupped, ſaying, This cup is the new teſtament in my bloud: this doe as oft as yee drinke it, in r…membrance of me. For as often as ye ſhal eate this bread & drink this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death til he come. Theſe words of the Apoſtle we wil briefly expound, and then we will demonſtrate them by true and firme arguments.
In the night that he was betraied. This circumſtance is ſpecified by the Apoſtle, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtande, that Chriſt would at the laſt ſupper of the Paſſeouer inſtitute this his ſupper, to ſhew, 1. That now an end was made of al the old ſacrifices, & he did ſubſtitute a new ſacrament, which ſhould ſ…cceed, & ſhould be obſerued that Paſchal ſacramēt being aboliſhed. 2. That the ſame thing might be ſignified, difference only of time excepted. For the Paſchal Lamb ſignified Chriſt which ſhould come and ſhould be ſacrificed; The ſupper, Chriſt already ſacrificed. Obiection. But when the ſupper was inſtituted, Chriſt was yet to be ſacrificed. Aunſwere. But then was at hand the offering vp and ſacrificing of Chriſt: For a few houres after, he was ſacrificed, and the ſupper was from that time forward to ſignifie chriſt ſacrificed. 3. That he might ſtir vp in his Diſciples, and in vsus greater attention and marking of the cauſe, for which he did inſtitute it, and that we might vnderſtand how earneſtly Chriſt would hauehave this ſupper to bee recommended vntounto vsus: ſeeing he did nothing before his death, but that which was of moſt weight and moment. Therefore did he in the very point or inſtaunt before his death inſtitute it. For it is as it were the teſtament, and laſt wil of our teſtatour: For which cauſe it is added, In the ſame night that he was betraied.
Hee tooke bread: That is, vnleauened bread, nor leauened, which then they did eat of at the table. The inſtitution of the Supper, and Vnleauened bread did concur then together and fall out by an accident: and therefore he preſcribed not any certaine manner of baking bread for the lords ſupper. Yet notwithſtanding the bread of the Lords ſupper differeth from common bread: becauſe this is taken for the nouriſhment of the bodie; but that for the foode and nouriſhment of the ſoul, that is, for the confirmation of our faith. And here wee are to note, that he is ſaide to hauehave taken bread from the table. Hee tooke not his bodie therefore: neither tooke hee his bodie in the bread, with the bread, or vnderunder the bread.
When hee had giuen thankes. He gaue thanks for his office now performed and finiſhed on earth (his laſt act yet remaining to bee done) that thus it had pleaſed the Father to redeeme mankind, or that the typicall paſſouer was aboliſhed, and the ſignified paſſouer was now exhibited, or laſtly, hee gaue thankes for the admirable and wonderfull gathering and preſeruing of the church.
Hee brake it. That is, he brake the bread, which hee tooke from the table, & diſtributed the ſame, being one, amongſt many; not any other inuiſible thing hidden in the bread. He brake not his bodie, but the bread, as S. Paul ſaieth. The bread which we breake, &c. Now he diſtributed the bread, being one, among many, becauſe wee that are many are one bodie. But the cauſe, for which hee brake this bread, was to ſignifie his paſſion and the ſeparation of his bodie from his ſoul. Wherefore the breaking of bread is a neceſſarie ceremonie, both in reſpect of the ſignification, & in reſpect of our confirmation, and therefore is this ceremonie alſo to bee reteined. 1. Becauſe Chriſt hath commaunded it. 2. For our owne comfort: that we may knowe, the bodie of Chriſt to hauehave beene as certainly crucified for vsus, as we ſee the bread to bee broken. 3. That the opinion of tranſubſtantiation and conſubſtantiation may be pulled out of mens mindes.
Take. This commandement belongeth to the diſciples, and to the whole Church of the new Teſtament. Whence it is cleare and manifeſt, 1. That the maſſe is not the Supper of the Lord, but a priuate ſupper of him that ſacrificeth. 2. That we muſt not be idle beholders of the ſupper, but religious receiuers of it. 3. That the lords ſupper is not to be celebrated, but in an aſſembly or congregation. 4. That the ſupper is a ſigne in reſpect of God.
This is my body. This, that is, this bread. Obiection. Then ſhould it hauehave been ſaid, *Theſe Greeke pronouns cānot bee expreſſed with the like Engliſh particle…. Becauſe the woordes, BREAD, and BODY, being of diuerſe genders in Greeke, the Greek pronouns alſo are diuer…e: when a… in Engliſh our particle THIS ſerueth for woordes of all genders.foreign. Aunſwere. foreign, is as much as if he had ſaid, this thing which I hauehave in my hand.
And that it is ſo to bee vnderſtoode is prooued by theſe reaſons, 1. Christ tooke nothing but bread, hee brake bread, and gaue bread to his diſciples to eate. 2. Saint Paul ſaith expreſly, The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of …hriſt? 3. Of the Wine it is ſaid, This cup is the new teſtament. Wherefore after the ſame manner is it ſaide, This, that is, this bread, is my bodie, that is, a ſigne of my bodie, which is broken and deliuered vntounto death. Wherefore farre be it from vsus, that we ſhould ſay, that Chriſt took bread viſiblie, and his bodie inuiſiblie. It is to be obſerued, that hee ſaith not, Jn this is my bodie: or, this bread is my bodie inuiſible: but, This bread is my bodie.
Which for you; My Diſciples, that is, for your ſaluation.
Is broken. Obiection. But Chriſtes bodie neither was, nor is broken. Aunſwere. Hee hath a reſpect to the ſignification, which the breaking of the breade did import. Nowe this breaking ſignifieth the paines, and renting of Chriſtes bodie, and the violent ſundering of his ſoule and bodie one from the other. For as the bread is broken and parted into diuers partes, ſo the ſoule and bodie of Chriſt were ſeparated and parted from each other.
Do this. That is, Being gathered & aſſembled together, take bread, giuegive thankes, diſtribute it. Hee vnderſtandeth the whole action which hee commaundeth, and that to vsus which beleeue, and not the Iewes, who were ready to crucifie him.
In remembraunce of me That is. Thinking and meditating of my benefites, which I hauehave done for you, and which are by theſe rites recalled into your memory; and further verily feeling and finding in heart, that I giuegive you theſe my ben…fites: and therefore celebrating them by publique confeſſion before God, and Angels, yea before men alſo, and ſo giuing me thankes for them. This remembraunce is the whole, whoſe partes are, the memory of chriſtes benefites; faith, whereby we apply chriſt & his merit vntounto vsus; thankfulneſſe, or publique confeſſion of his benefits. Wherefore it followeth not, Chriſt did inſtitute his ſupper for a remembraunce of him; therefore he did not inſtitute it for confirmation of our faith. For this obiection is no leſſe friuolous. than if I ſhould ſay, The holy Ghoſt confirmeth our faith: Therefore the ſupper doth not. For, as it hath beene ſaid before, the reaſon followeth not to the remoouing of the inſtrumentall cauſe, by the putting of the principall cauſe: as neither dooth it follow to the deni…l of a pa…, by the putting of the whole. For Remembrance compriſeth the remembring of chriſtes benefites, faith, and thanksgiuing. For by his ſacramentes chriſt remembreth vsus of himſelfe, and his benefites, and by his ſacraments he raiſeth and eſtabliſheth in vsus our truſt and confidence in him. And further of that remembraunce of chriſtes benefites, it muſt follow, that wee alſo yeelde thankes vntounto him therefore publiquely.
This cup is the new teſtament. Or, the couenant, as both the*Berith. greeke, and*foreign. Hebrue word admitteth. Now it is called the new couenant, that is, renewed, or (to ſpeake it in a woord) fulfilled. And this new couenant is our reconciliation with God, the communion and participation of Chriſt and all his benefites by faith in the ſacrifice of Chriſt now fulfilled & finiſhed, without any obſeruation of the ceremonies of the old Paſſeouer. The ſupper is called the new couenāt, becauſe it is a ſigne and a ſeale of this couenant, ſigning and ſealing vntounto vsus our reconciliation with God, and our coniunction with Chriſt which is wrought by faith. Now in calling the ſupper the new couenant, firſt he comprehendeth both the promiſe, and the condition which is expreſſed in the promiſe, namelie faith and repentance: Whereof alſo it foloweth, that the ſupper was for this cauſe alſo inſtituted, that it might bee a bond to bind vsus to lead a chriſtian life. Secondly, hee maketh an oppoſition betweene the new couenant, and that couenant which was the Paſſeouer, together with the rites thereof. For the ſupper ſignified Chriſt offered. The Paſſeouer ſignified Chriſt who ſhould bee offered. There is notwithſtanding no ſmall ſimilitude and agreeing of both. For both ſignifie our reconciliation with God, and coniunction with Chriſt.
J… my bloud: which is ſhed for you for remiſſion of ſinnes. The ſhedding of Chriſts bloud is the merite for which, beeing apprehended of vsus by faith, we receiue remiſſion of ſinnes.
For as often as yee ſhall eate. The ſupper therefore is often to be iterated and celebrated. 1. Becauſe of the woordes of the inſtitution. 2. In reſpect of the ende and purpoſe of the inſtitution; becauſe it muſt bee done in remembranuce of Chriſt.
Shewe the Lordes death. That is, beleeue that Chriſt died, and that for you: and then, profeſſe it alſo publiquely before all.
Till hee come. Therefore it muſt bee obſerued vntounto the worlds end: neither is any other externall forme to be looked for vntill the day of iudgement.
The words of the inſtitution, which hauehave beene hitherto expounded, may be made more plaine and cleare by theſe wordes of the Apoſtle. The cup of bleſſing, which we bleſſe, is it not the communion of the bloude of Chriſt? The bread which wee breake, is it not the communion of the bodie of Chriſt? The cup of bleſſing: that is, the cup of thankeſgiuing, which is receiued namely to this end, that wee may yeeld thankes to Chriſt for his death and paſsion. The communion of the bodie, likewiſe, the communion of the bloud, is, to be made through faith partaker of Chriſt and all his benefites, the ſame ſpirit being in vsus, which is in Chriſt, and woorking the ſame in vsus, which he worketh in Chriſt. Bread and wine is the communion, that is, it is the ſigne of our communion with Chriſt. Now our communion, as the Apoſtle briefly declareth, conſiſteth in this: that wee who are manie, are one bodie. Whence it is moſt eaſie to collect, that this communion is not a corporall eating. For it is wrought onelyonly by faith and the holy Ghoſt. Chriſt is the heade, and wee the members, and all wee, who are members, hauehave alſo a communion of all Chriſts benefites. Therefore the heade is common, the benefites common, and ſo the members alſo common among themſelues; wherefore their louelove and dilection is common and mutual.
We vnderſtand nowe what is the true meaning of the words of the inſtitution, eſpeciallie of thoſe about which is greateſt cōtrouerſy; which are theſe. This is my body; that is, (to repeat in few wordes the true ſenſe of them) This bread broken of me and giuen to you, is a ſigne of my bodie for your ſakes rent and deliuered vntounto death, and a certaine ſeale of your coniunction with me, ſo that he who beleeueth and eateth this bread, doth truelie and reallie after a ſort eat my bodie. This our iudgement and interpretation, or Chriſts rather, is moſt true, and vntounto the truth of the Goſpell moſt agreeable. Here eſpecially reſiſt…unce is made, and the greateſt controuerſie is about the word or vnderſtanding of the word.
For our aduerſaries vnderſtand thoſe wordes ſo, as t…ey maintaine thereof to folow, that Chriſtes bodie is preſent and eaten corporallie. But in the meane ſeaſon they conſider not that thoſe wordes are ſacramentallie to bee taken, or that the ſpeech is ſacramental, and therefore is not to be taken as proper and ſimple, as it ſhoulde bee, if thence were gathered, that the bread is changed into Chriſts bodie. Now to the ſigne here is attributed the name of the thing ſignified, both for the coniunction which the thing ſignified hath, in the right vſe of the ſupper, with the ſigne, and alſo for the proportion which the ſigne hath with the thing ſignified.
Come wee now to thoſe arguments, whereby wee may confirme our interpretation and opinion to bee true. The arguments, which wee will vſe, are of three ſorts, ſuch as are wont to bee alſo in like controuerſies. 1. Some are taken from the nature of the thing or ſubiect, that is, by vnderſtanding the ſpeech as the thing it ſelfe doth beare and ſuffer. 2. Some are drawen from an analogie of the articles of our faith, or from a conference of places, or parts of chriſtian doctrine: for the holy ſpirite is the ſpirite of truth. 3. Some are taken from other like places of ſcripture, where the ſame thing is deliuered in ſuch words as are manifeſt, and whereof there is no controuerſie.
The firſt ſort of Arguments, which are taken from the nature of the ſacraments.
THE verie manner and forme of ſpeaking yeeldeth vsus a firme and ſtrong argument: Breade is the bodie of Chriſt: but bread is not in it owne proper ſubſtance his bodie: (for by reaſon hereof hauehave they inuented conſubſtantiation) therefore it is a figuratiue ſpeeche, euen ſuch a one as is vſual vntounto ſacraments, and is declared in the inſtitution.
2 Sacraments confirme, exhibit, promiſe, ſeale no other thing than the woorde doth: In the woorde is promiſed no corporal eating. Therefore neither is anie ſuch thing confirmed by the ſacrament.
3 In all ſacraments, when the names or properties of the things are attributed vntounto the ſignes, there is not ſignified the corporal preſence of the thing, but firſt, a ſimilitude of the things with their ſignes, then a coniunction and vnion of the things with their ſignes in the right vſe: but in this ſacrament Chriſt attributeth the name of the thing, which is his bodie, to the ſigne: therefore there is not thereby ſignified a corporal preſence of his bodie.
4 The communion of Chriſt, which is promiſed in his woorde and ſacraments, is not corporal: but the communion of Chriſt, which is giuen in the ſupper, is the ſame with that which is giuen in the word and in all ſacraments: therefore the communion of Chriſt in the ſupper is ſpiritual.
5 There is one and the ſame ſignification of all the Sacraments of the old and new teſtament. This is manifeſt, becauſe in all the promiſes the ſame benefits are promiſed vntounto vsus, which are promiſed in the ſacraments. The ſacraments are the viſible woorde; and the ſacraments promiſe the ſame which doth the word. But in the Goſpell is deliuered a communion which is wrought by faith. That there is the ſame ſignification of the ſacramentes of both Teſtaments, the Apoſtle ſheweth, 1. Cor. 12.13. By one ſpirite are wee all baptized into one bodie. And 1. Cor. 10.2.3. All were baptized vntounto Moſes in the cloude, and in the ſea, and did all eate the ſame ſpiritual meate. Obiection. There is not the ſame thing ſignified of all ſacramentes. For in baptiſme, the thing is the waſhing by the bloud of Chriſt, in the ſupper, the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. Aunſwere. The thing is not diuers, becauſe it is the ſame, to bee waſhed by the …ud of Chriſt, and to drink the bloud of chriſt. But the manner of ſignifiyng one and the ſme thing is diuers, that is, there is a diuers ſimilitude of one and the ſame thing ſignified by the ſignes, or, one and the ſame thing hath a diuers ſimilitude or proportion. Therefore as in baptiſme ſo in circumciſion likewiſe and the Paſſeouer is promiſed a ſpiritual thing, not a corporal: and ſo alſo here in the Lords ſupper.
6 The nature of all ſacraments is, that the ſignes bee vnderſtood corporallie, that the things ſignified muſt be taken ſpiritually, and that the viſible things be not the ſignified thinges, but onelie ſignes and pledges of them.
7 The conceit of a corporal preſence of Chriſt vnderunder the bread is wholie different and diuers from the formal conſideration of a ſacrament. Therefore it is to be rejected. The antecedent is proued: becauſe it cannot bee accounted either for the ſigne, or the thing ſigned. It is not the ſigne or ſacrament becauſe it is not obiect vntounto the ſenſes. And further, it hath no proportion or ſimilitude with the thing, that is, with the ſpiritual eating. Neither can it be ſaid to be the thing ſigned, ſeeing the ſcripture no where preacheth of an eſſentiall transfuſion, and real commixtion of Chriſts fleſh with our bodies, neither can there be anie, except wee entertaine the follies and dreames of Eutychians and Schuenkfeldians. For the ſacraments teſtifie of thoſe bleſſings onelie, and them onlie doe they ſeale vntounto vsus, which are conteined in the promiſe of the Goſpel. Therefore no place is left for a ſubſtantial preſence of the bodie in the bread, as being altogether fruitles and vnprofitable.
8 Sacramentes or ſignes ought to bee viſible, ſo that it deſerueth not (ſaith Eraſmus) to be called a ſacrament, which is not accompliſhed by an external ſigne. For to this end and vſe are they giuen of god, that they may effectuallie ſhew as it were to our outward ſenſes, that which is promiſed in the word, and performed by the holie Ghoſt in our hearts, that they may be viſible teſtimonies & pledges of the promiſe of grace exhibited & applied. Whence is that ſaying of Auſtin: A ſacrament is a viſible woord: it is a viſible forme of an inuiſible grace. Therefore no thing or action, which is inuiſible, inſenſible, and not natural, can make the nature or appellation of a ſacrament. And conſequentlie, they who wil hauehave chriſts fleſh to be in, vnderunder, or with the bread, or wil hauehave the bread to be tranſubſtantiated into his fleſh, let them ſhew vsus a viſible and ſenſible eating of it in the ſupper, leaſt they ſeeme to diſſent from the auncient fathers.
9 There muſt bee an analogie and proportion betweene the ſigne or ſacrament, and the thing ſignified, or the thing of the ſacrament: f…r except the ſacraments (ſaith Auſtin) had ſome ſimilitude of thoſe things whereof they are ſacraments, they were not verilie anie ſacraments. Nowe if chriſts fleſh bee alſo a ſacrament, and the thing of theſe ſacraments bee inuiſible grace: what proportion then and ſimilitude ſhal there be between the two ſacraments? But ſeeing there can be none, it foloweth that chriſts fleſh may not be called a ſacrament, as being no leſſe the thing it ſelfe of the ſacrament, than eternal ſaluation, ſignified, by way of proportion, by viſible breade, as by a ſigne. Wherefore the ſacramentall eating, which is done naturallie by the mouth, dooth not belong vntounto the bodie of Chriſt conſidered by it ſelfe, in anie Phyſical or natural reſpect: becauſe vntounto this ſacramental eating the external ſignes onelie are obiect in their own nature. Saint Auſtin demaunding how bread is the bodie of Chriſt, and wine his bloud; theſe (ſaith he) brethren are therefore called ſacramentes, becauſe in them, one thing is ſeene, and an other thing vnderſtood. That which is ſeene, hath a corporall forme; that which is vnderſtood, hath a ſpiritual fruite. If then thou wilt vnderſtand the bodie of Chriſt, heare the Apoſtle ſpeaking to the faithful: Ye are the bodie of Chriſt and his members. Jf then yee bee the bodie of Chriſt, and his members, your myſterie is ſet on the table, &c.
Theſe are the Argumentes deduced out of the nature of the thing or ſubiect, which is, by vnderſtanding the ſpeech as the thing doth beare and permit.
The ſecond ſort of arguments, which are deduced from the analogie of faith.
FIRME and ſtrong reaſons are drawen, from the article which is concerning the truth of Chriſts humane nature.
1 Chriſt tooke a true humane nature, like vntounto vsus in all things, except ſinne. This nature therefore cannot bee in moe places at one and the ſame time, and therefore neither can it be together in heauē & in the bread: becauſe it is proper vntounto the nature of God onelyonly, to be at once in diuerſe places. Chriſtes body is finite, as being a true body: but it is now in heauen, as is proued out of the article of his aſcenſion into heauen. Therefore Chriſts bodie is not in the bread. Many abuſe this argument, omitting the firſt ground which is altogether true and neceſſarie. For glorification doth not deſtroie or aboliſh the nature of his humane nature. Handle me and ſee: for a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, as yee ſee me hauehave. While they beheld him, he was taken vp. 3. Jf the true and verie bodie of Chriſt be infinite, it is alſo inuiſible and inſenſible. Therefore that which was ſeene, ſuffered and wrought on earth, was no true bodie, but apparent & phantaſtical: becauſe it can not agree, no not to the Godhead it ſelfe, to bee at one time finite and infinite, ſenſible, and inſenſible: and ſo all thoſe thinges, which are ſpoken of chriſt in the articles of our Beleefe ſhould not hauehave beene done indeede, but onelyonly ſhould hauehave ſeemed and appeared to be done, & ſo we ſhould remaine as yet in death.
2 There are good arguments alſo deriued from the article which conteineth the communion of ſaints with chriſt. 1. Such is the communio… of ſaintes with Chriſt now, as it was of olde, & ſhall be hereafter, and ſuch alſo is the communion of thoſe ſaints which vſe the ſacrament, as of them who are by neceſſity excluded from it. But ſuch a communion of ſaints with Chriſt is ſpirituall, as the Apoſtle doth ſhew, 1. Cor. 6.17. Hee that is ioined vntounto the Lorde is one ſpirit. 1. Ioh. 4.13. Hereby know we, that we dwel in him, and he in vsus: becauſe he hath giuen vsus of his ſpirit. Iohn. 15.5. He is the vine, we are the branches. Epheſ. 1.22. & 4.15. & 5.30.31. He is the Bridegroome, and we with the whole Church are his ſpouſe. 2 Such is our eating of Chriſt, as is his abiding in vsus: but this is ſpirituall. For that Chriſts abiding in vsus is ſpirituall, is ſufficientlie perceiued by this, in that ſuch is his abiding in vsus, as is his Fathers. Jf anie man louelove me, he will keepe my woord, and my Father will louelove him, and we will come vntounto him, and will dwell with him. But how doth the Father dwell in vsus, or abide with vsus? Truely, by his ſpirite. Therefore Chriſt alſo ſo abideth with vsus, or dwelleth in vsus. 3 Chriſt abideth in vsus perpetually: Therefore that abiding or preſence is not corporall; becauſe as touching his humane nature, he ſaith, Me yee ſhall not hauehave alwaies. Therefore hee is not eaten of vsus corporallie, nay hee cannot be eaten of vsus corporallie, except he be in vsus corporally, and that alſo perpetuallie.
3 VntoUnto the former m…y be adioined alſo argumentes taken from the ſacrifice and adoration: Whereſoeuer Chriſt is preſent corporallie, whether it be after a viſible or inuiſible manner, there he is to be adored, to wit, by our mindes and the motions of our bodies cōuerted & turned thither: But he is not to be adored in the ſupper. Therefore he is not preſent in the ſupper corporally. That he is not to be adored in the ſupper, is eaſilie proued. For it is neuer granted in the new teſtament, to tie & bind inuocation to anie certain place. Ioh. 4.21. The houre commeth, when yee ſhal neither in this mountain, nor at Ieruſalem worſhip the father. Againe, Jf chriſt be ſo be adored & worſhipped in the ſupper, by our mindes and motions of bodie conuerted vntounto the bread, that whole oblation & ſacrifice ſhould conſiſt in the hands of ſacrificing maſſe-Prieſts, becauſe they offer the Son vntounto the Father to obtain remiſſion of ſins; and ſo were his crucifieng to be reiterated.
The third ſort of argumentes, which are drawen from like places of ſcripture, where namelie the ſame thing is deliuered in words, whereof there is no controuerſie.
1 COrporall eating is in expreſſe termes condemned by the holie Ghoſt. Jt is the ſpirite, ſaith Chriſt, that quickeneth, the fleſh profiteth nothing: By theſe woordes Chriſt expreſſely condemneth the corporal eating of his fleſh, whether viſible, or inuiſible.
2 The bread which we break (ſaith the Apoſtle) is the cō munion of the body of chriſt. But this cōmuniō is ſpiritual: becauſe when the ſame Apostle oppoſeth it to the communion of diuels (ye cānot, ſaith he, drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of diuels: yee cannot be partakers of the lords table, and of the table of Diuels) by theſe words the Apoſtle denieth that the wicked can be partakers of the bodie and blood of chriſt in the ſupper. And therefore there is no corporall eating of the body and bloude of chriſt in his ſupper.
3 Chriſt ſaith that the bread is his bodie: Therefore they tie not themſelues to the verie woorde, who ſay that chriſts body is in the bread, vnderunder the bread, with the bread.
4 The cup is the new teſtament, that is, the cup is a ſigne of the new teſtament: for it cannot bee otherwiſe meant or taken. For the new teſtament is the ſeale of the promiſe, or the promiſe it ſelf, but not the thing promiſed. Likewiſe: The cup is the communion of the bloud of chriſt: The bread is the communion of the body of chriſt: But this communion is a ſpirituall eating and drinking of the body and bloud of chriſt, as is apparaunt by the wordes of the Apoſtle: and the ſignes of that ſpiritual eating and drinking are bread and wine.
5 In the Euangeliſt, To eat chriſt, which is the liuing bread which deſcended from heauen: Likewiſe, To eat Chriſts fleſh, and to drinke his bloud, ſignifieth to beleeue in Chriſt. Therefore in the words of the inſtitutiō it ſignifieth the ſame alſo: becauſe chriſt doth not here otherwiſe expound them.
6 There are alſo the like places of ſcripture vttered ſacramentally of other ſacramentes, which confirme alſo the truth and meaning of this: as, Circumciſion is the couenant: The lamb is the Paſſeouer; The leuitical ſacrifices are ſaid to be an expiation or doing away of ſinne: The bloud of ſacrifices is called the bloud of the couenant. Baptiſme is the waſhing of the new birth: Therefore theſe woords alſo, This is my bodie, are in like ſort ſacramentally ſpoken.
7 Chriſt commaundeth his ſupper to bee celebrated, and the bread & wine to be eaten & drunken, in remembrance of him: but this remēbrance is chiefly performed by faith, not corporally. Moreouer, that, in memorial wherof we doe any thing, is not it ſelfe preſent, becauſe we are not ſaid to remember things that are preſent.
8 By one ſpirite are we al baptized into one bodie, whether we be Iewes or Grecians, whether we be bond or free: and hauehave been al made to drinke into one ſpirite. Wherefore after the ſame maner doe we al eate the ſame bread. Which Paul alſo manifeſtly ſheweth, affirming, That al the Fathers did eate the ſame ſpirituall foode. That eating therefore is not corporall, whereby we are made partakers of the body and bloud of chriſt: otherwiſe before the comming of chriſt the fathers ſhould not hauehave beene at al made partakers of chriſt, as hauing not as yet taken fleſh.
VntoUnto theſe argumentes drawen out of the ſacred Scripture and the ground of our faith, may be added teſtimonies of the fathers and the purer church, of al which we will at this preſent bring only that one notable ſaying of Macharius the Monke: Bread and wine are a correſpondent type of his fleſh; and they who receiue the bread which is ſhewed, eate the fleſh of Chriſt ſpirituallie.
AGAINST THE TRANSVBSTANTIATION OF THE PAPISTES.
NOW it is eaſy to ſee what we are to thinke of Tranſubstantiation; euen that it is an impious inuention & deuiſe of the Papiſts: which alſo we wil ſhew and proue briefly by diuers reaſons.
1 Paul calleth expreſſely that, which is taken, bread, both before & after the eating: Therefore that which is taken in the ſupper is not really the body.
2 Chriſt brake bread: but hee did not then breake his body: Therefore the bread is not really his body.
3 The Bread was not giuen for vsus; But the body of chriſt was giuen for vsus: Therefore the bread is not really Chriſts body.
4 Chriſt willeth vsus to take this ſacrament, and to take bread and wine, in remembraunce of him. Therefore the bread is called the body of Chriſt, not reallie, but in that it is a memorial of his body, that is, the bread is a remembrauncer vntounto vsus of chriſts body, euen as alſo it is cōmanded in the words of the inſtitution, Shew the Lords death til he come.
5 The Analogie & proportion of the ſign & the thing doth manifeſtly enough refel tranſubſtantiatiō. For in eueryevery ſacrament ar theſe two, the ſign, & the thing ſignified: but the ſign ſhould periſh if the bread ſhould be tranſubſtantiated, that is, if there ſhold be a change of the bread into chriſts body: for ſo ſhould remaine the thing ſignified onlie, and not the ſigne, & therefore no ſacrament.
O…iection. But the Accidents of bread and wine, doe ſtill remaine, as whiteneſſe, ſoftneſſe, and ſuch like. Aunſwere. But ſo wil there not bee a proportion betweene the ſigne, and the thing ſignified, becauſe accidents doe not nouriſh. You can not ſay, as the accidents of bread and wine nouriſh the body, ſo the body of Chriſt nouriſheth my ſoule vntounto euerlaſting life And further alſo, the promiſe of God would by this meanes be made voide and fruſtrate. For God promiſed that hee would giuegive the Meſſias, not of the ſubſtaunce of wheat and wine, but of the ſeede of Dauid, Reply. But we ſaie not that the bread and wine are conuerted into the ſubſtaunce of Chriſts bodie, but that the ſubſtaunce of the bread and wine vaniſheth quite awaie, & in place thereof ſucceedeth the ſubſtance of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt. Aunſwere. Of this bread chriſt ſpeaketh, That it is his body, and the ſame bread both before, and in, and after the adminiſtration of it, is called bread. Chriſt ſaith not, this which is vnderunder the forme of bread, is my body: but he ſaith, this, that is, this bread, is my bodie. And Paul ſaith, The bread whith we breake, is the communion of the bodie of Chriſt: And againe, For we that are many, are one breade and one body. Againe, As often as yee ſhall eate this bread &c. And a little after, Whoſoeuer ſhal eate this bread vnworthilie, &c. Moreouer; Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate of this bread. Wherefore it is plaine and euident that the ſubſtaunce of bread and wine neither is changed, neither periſheth, neither lieth hid vnderunder a forme, but remaineth ſtil the ſame bread and the ſame wine.
Nowe that there is no tranſubſtantiation or conuerſion of the ſubſtaunce of the breade and wine into the bodie of Chriſt, is thus prooued. If there bee anie tranſubſtantiation, chriſtes inſtitution is peruerted: for it aboliſheth and bringeth to nothing the ſubſtaunce of the bread, which is the verie thing, that in this ceremony is the body of chriſt. For ſeing the bread is the body of Chriſt, then doubtleſſe, if the bread remaine not, neither doth the bodie of chriſt remaine in the ſupper, and ſo chriſts woordes are no longer true, when hee ſaide that that bread is his bodie, and that wine his …loud. The Tranſubſtantiaries, if they be demaunded, what thing it i… that they call the bodie of chriſt in the ſupper; certainely they will not aunſwere, it is bread: for they hauehave no bread left in the ſupper, becauſe it is tranſubſtantiated: but they will ſend vsus to the very ſubſtance of chriſts body abſolutely cō ſidered, couered on the altar with the accidentes of bread. Wherefore all they er who obiect and preſent the bodie of chriſt, beeing conſidered by it ſelfe in it own proper matter and ſubiect, to the external actions of the ſupper. Theſe and the former reaſons refell conſubſtantiation alſo; wherefore neither wil we bring any moe reaſons ſeuerally againſt it. OnelyOnly ſome certaine obiections of the Conſubſtantiaries themſelues we will refute.
A refutation of obiections framed to confirme conſubſtantiation.
1 OBiection. Chriſt ſaid, This is my bodie. But Chriſt is true. Therefore we muſt beleeue him, ſetting apart all Philoſophicall ſubtiltie and ſharpenes, and ſo by conſequent, bread is not a ſigne of his bodie. Aunſwere. Wee graunt their argument, if they prooue that Chriſt putteth this to bee his meaning, namely, that Jn, VnderUnder, and With the bread, is his bodie. Replie. But it is ſaid here, This is my bodie. Aunſwere. In other ſacramentes alſo are the like ſpeeches: as, The Paſchal Lambe is called the Paſſ…ouer, Bap…iſme the waſhing of the newe-birth, Circumciſion the couenant. Replie. But we ſay not that the bread is the bodie of Chriſt reallie, as the Papiſts ſay, but that the bodie is in the bread. Aunſwere. But in this reſpect the Papiſts ſeeme more to keep the word, whom yet the Apoſtle expreſſely refuteth, calling it bread both before the eating, and in the eating, and after the eating. 2. It is no where ſaide either by Chriſt or by Saint Paul, That the bodie of Chriſt is in the bread, vnderunder the bread, with the bread, neither any where in ſcripture is this expreſſed. But the true ſenſe and meaning of thoſe wordes is expreſſed in the text it ſelf: namely, that the bread is the bodie of Chriſt ſymbolically, that is, as a ſymbole or tokē of it. For in the text it is plainly ſaid, Do this in remembrance of me. So Paul alſo calleth the bread, the communion of the bodie of chriſt. Wherefore the bread is the repreſenting or ſymbolical & ſignifieng body of chriſt. The bread is a ſign of chriſts bodie, but not a couert wherein his bodie it ſelf remaineth.
2 Obiection. Chriſt is omnipotent. Therefore his bodie may be there, and ſo, becauſe he ſaid it, it is there. Anſwere. The reaſon is of no force, which will conclude a thing to bee done, becauſe it may bee done. Replie. Whatſoeuer is at the right hand of God is euerie where. Aunſwere. It is falſe. For the ſitting at the right hand of God ſignifieth the vnion of both natures in Chriſt, his power and rule, and excellencie of gifts. Now although he rule all thinges, yet is it not neceſſarie that hee ſhoulde bee preſent in bodie It is ſufficient that his perſon is eueryevery where, and is preſent in dignitie. As alſo hee ſuſtained all thinges euen then, when hee hung on the Croſſe, neither yet was his bodie eueryevery where. Therefore to ſay, that chriſt ſitteth at the right hand of the Father, ſignifieth that chriſt is the perſon by whom the Father mediately gouerneth & ruleth al things, eſpeciallie the church. But no part of this Sitting is the vbiquitie of chriſts bodie: & it ſufficeth that chriſts perſon is eueryevery where.
3 Obiection. That which quickeneth and nouriſheth vsus, is receiued into vsus, the bodie and bloud of chriſt doe quicken vsus: therefore they are receiued into vsus. Aunſwere. The Maior is but meere particular, and therefore falſe in general for not whatſoeuer quickeneth and nouriſheth vsus, muſt neceſſarily be receiued into vsus. That only muſt be receiued into vsus neceſſarily, which quickneth & nouriſheth naturally, that is, by a ioint-touching of our bodie. This meate, which ſo nouriſheth vsus after a naturall manner, dooth not nouriſhe vsus, except thereby the ſubſtaunce of our bodie bee increaſed. But wee ſpeake farre otherwiſe of the nouriſhing of the ſoule, which is ſpirituall. Chriſtes bodie doth not at all nouriſh vsus naturally: for it doth not being receiued into vsus quicken vsus, by working in vsus new corporal qualities, like as a medicine dooth: but the bodie of chriſt nouriſheth and quickeneth vsus after a maner diuers from that natural nouriſhing; and accordingly as this manner of nouriſhing and quickening requireth, ſo receiue we chriſts bodie. The maner whereby chriſts bodie and bloud nouriſheth vsus, is, 1. The reſpect of his merite. For, for vsus chriſts bodie is giuen, and his bloud ſhed for vsus, and for the bodie and bloud of chriſt wee hauehave eternal life giuen vntounto vsus. After this manner then the bodie and bloud of chriſt quickeneth vsus, as it is a merit deſeruing for vsus this bleſſing. 2. His bodie and bloude quickeneth or nouriſheth vsus, when wee receiue that merite of chriſts bodie and bloud: that is, when we beleeue with a true faith that for it wee ſhall hauehave eternall life. This faith reſteth and hangeth on chriſt hanging on the Croſſe, not corporallie dwelling in vsus. 3. It nouriſheth vsus, when the ſame ſpirite vniteth vsus by faith vntounto chriſt, and worketh the like in vsus, which it doth in chriſt. For except wee be graffed into chriſt, wee doe not pleaſe God. For hee will on that condition receiue vsus, and pardon vsus our ſinnes. So that by faith through the working of the holy Ghoſt, we bee ioined with chriſt, and engraffed into him. Seeing then this is the maner, whereby the bodie and bloude of chriſt quicken and nouriſh vsus, there is no need of any deſcending of the bodie and bloud of chriſt into our bodies.
4 Obiection. The eating of bread is done by the mouth: But the eating of the bodie is the eating of bread. Therefore the eating of the bodie is done by the mouth, and is corporall, when it is ſaide, Take and eate. Aunſwere. This eating, whereof mention is made heere, is perfourmed by the mouth, not ſimplie, but as concerning the ſigne. But it is not doone by the mouth, but is ſpirituall, as concerning the thing ſignified & ſpirituall. Reply. This is my bodie, that is the inuiſible bodie which J hauehave in my handes. Aunſwere. But the bodie is the thing ſignified and ſpirituall, other-wiſe there will bee no proportion betweene the ſigne and the thing ſignified. It followeth therefore that hee ſaieth, The bread is my bodie: So that the bread is that whereof the bodie is affirmed. For in this ſpeech the thing ſignified is affirmed of the ſigne.
5 Obiection. The Wordes are not to bee changed. Chriſt vſed the woord, Js; Therefore there may not be put in place thereof the word, Signifieth. Aunſwere. The woords are not to bee changed into another ſenſe, than God wil hauehave. But otherwiſe they are often to be changed: As when it is ſaid, Pluck out thine eie. For woords are to bee vnderſtoode according to the nature of thinges. Moreouer they themſelues, who accuſe vsus of change, doe more make this chaunge and mutation than we. Reply. The bodie of chriſt was broken and crucified for vsus: not the ſigne of the bodie. Therefore the bread is the ſubſtantiall bodie of chriſt. Anſw. I grant: for the bread ſignifieth that very bodie, which was borne of Marie & crucified.
Queſtion. Why then are the things ſignified attributed to the ſignes, Two cauſes why the thinge, ſignified are attributed to the ſignes.and the ſignes called by their names, if neither conſubſtantiation, nor tranſubſtantiation bee thereby ſignified? Aunſwere. There are two cauſes alleadged heereof: A ſimilitude or likeneſſe, and a certainty. 1. The ſimilitude or proportion of ſignes and the thing ſignified is, firſt: As the bread and wine nouriſh our body, ſo the body and bloud of chriſt nouriſh vsus vntounto euerlaſting life. Secondly, As the bread and wine are receiued by the mouth, ſo the body and bloud are receiued by faith. Thirdly, As the bread is eaten being broken, ſo the bodie of chriſt is receiued being ſacrif ced and broken. Fourthly, As in corporall foode, is required an appetite vntounto it, ſo alſo in this ſpiritual foode is required faith. Fiftly, As of many cornes is made one loafe, ſo are we being many made one bodie. Wherefore by reaſon of this ſimilitude of the ſigne and the thing ſignified, the thing ſignified is attributed vntounto the ſignes. 2. The certainty of the ſignes in the cauſe likewiſe why that is aff…rmed of the ſignes, which is proper vntounto the thing ſignified. For the ſ…gnes teſtifie that chriſtes ſacrifice is accompliſhed, and for our behoofe and commodity: becauſe it is certainly and truly applied vntounto vsus.
Here laſt of al is to be obſerued, that the eating of chriſts body dooth compriſe and comprehend, 1. Faith. 2. That by faith we are made partakers of chriſt, that is, we are vnited vntounto Chriſt, and our communion is wrought by faith: and the holy Ghoſt is the bond of this our vnion and coniunction with Chriſt. 3. That wee are made partakers of Chriſts benefites, iuſtification, and remiſſion of ſinnes. And this enſueth of that vnion of Chriſt with vsus. 4. Jt comprehendeth alſo the benefite of our regeneration, whereby we are made like and conformed vntounto chriſt, becauſe the ſame ſpirit dwelling in vsus and in chriſt, worketh alſo the ſame things in vsus. This eating is eaſily collected, as out of many other places, ſo alſo out of this ſaieng of chriſt. I am the liuing bread which commeth downe from heauen; if any man eate of this bread hee ſhall liue for euer. And the bread that I will giuegive, is my fleſh, which I wil giuegive for the life of the world.