The Sum of Christian Religion, Animadversions · Controversy – Articles
A briefe Introduction to the Controverſie of the Euchariſt, explaining the chiefe Queſtions that are controverted, or not controverted among the Proteſtants: By D. DAVID PARIE.
Foure generall Remembrances.
1.LEt the younger ſort remember to diſcriminate between the queſtions that concerne the ceremonies and rites of the Supper, and queſtions of doctrine, which is the Evangelicall promiſe annexed to the ceremonie-
2. Let them learne alſo to put difference between queſtions controverted, and not controverted, whether of doctrine, or of ceremony.
3. Let them know, that the controverſies about the ceremony are of leſſe conſequence, and may, for the moſt part, yea ſhould with moderation be decided, or agreed upon, according to the circumſtances of time, place, and people: but alwaies to edification.
4. Let them know, that there are three chiefe queſtions of the doctrine of the Supper not controverted, and ſo many controverted, to which all others may be eaſily reduced: Of both I will briefly give ſome hints to young Divines.
Three uncontroverted Queſtions concerning the doctrine of the Supper.
1. What the Supper of the Lord is.
All Proteſtants agree in this, that the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of the New Teſtament, inſtituted by Chriſt; in which, bread and wine being taken, the true bodie and bloud of Chriſt is alſo received: ſo that there is ſealed to the faithfull the communion of Chriſt, and of his benefits.
2. What be the ends and uſes of the Supper inſtituted by Chriſt.
All Proteſtants conſent in this, that this receiving confirmes the faith of the promiſes of grace; both becauſe this is the common uſe of Sacraments: as alſo becauſe Chriſt ſaid of this Sacrament,1 Cor. 11.26. Doe this in remembrance of mee: And, This cup is the new covenant in my bloud: Therefore they conſent in this, that the holy Supper is the commemoration of our Lords death, untill he come, according to the Apoſtles admonition.
3. What is exhibited and received in the Lords Supper.
In this alſo the Proteſtants agree, that bread and wine is received by the mouth and bodie; the bodie and bloud of our Lord, with all his benefits, are taken by a faithfull heart: I ſay, the Proteſtant Divines agree in theſe; but, as for contentious pratlers, they neither agree in theſe, nor in any thing elſe: whoſe brawlings ſhould not meaſure mens judgements, concerning the conſent or controverſies of the Proteſtant Churches.
The three controverted Queſtions be theſe:
Queſt. 1. What the union of the ſigne, and thing ſignified is in the Lords Supper? Whether tranſubſtantiation, or conſubſtantiation: or elſe, a myſticall relation?
To theſe the anſwer ſhall be in three Propoſitions: two whereof ſhall be negative, and one affirmative.
Propoſition 1. The ſigne and the thing are not united by tranſubſtantiation; that is, by ſuch a mutation, which turnes the ſubſtance of the ſignes, into the ſubſtance of the things, the bare accidents remaining.
Reaſon 1. From Chriſts words, This is my body. He ſaid not, Be this, or, Let this be made my bodie. Reaſ. 2. Bread in the Scripture, is called bread in the action, before, and after the action, Reaſ. 3. The orthodox Fathers retaine bread in the Supper, and when they ſpeak hyperbolically of changing of the bread, they will be underſtood ſacramentally: as Theodoret, Dial. 1. Chriſt would have thoſe, foreign, cauſa eſt ſacramentis foreign,who receive the Sacraments, not to be intent upon the nature of the things, which are ſeen; but by the changing of names, to beleeve that change, which is made of grace. Here Theodoret himſelfe in the ſame Dialogue teacheth, that a ſacramentall change is to be underſtood, thus ſpeaking, He honoured the viſible ſignes by the name of Chriſts body and bloud, not changing nature, but adding grace to nature.
Propoſ. 2. The ſignes and things ſignified are not united by conſubſtantiation; that is, in the reall exiſtence of two bodies, in the ſame place, under the ſame accidents, or under the lurking of the one within the other: ſuch as is that of oates in the ſacke, of mony in the purſe, of the infant in the cradle, or of wine in the pot, which are like to things conſubſtantiated.
Reaſon 1. Becauſe the words of Chriſt, This is my body, ſhew to us, not where the bodie of Chriſt is, nor what it is in, with, or under the bread, but what the bread it ſelfe is, and ſhould be to godly men in this Sacrament; to wit, his bodie. Reaſ. 2. The bodie of Chriſt is a true, organicall, finite, and viſible bodie, not preſent, or every-where upon earth, ſince the Aſcenſion; but exiſting and remaining in heaven, even till his laſt returne: As the Apoſtle tells us, Declare the Lords death, untill his coming againe. Reaſ. 3. The orthodox Fathers teach, that the bodie and bloud of Chriſt are in the bread and wine; not, as in lurking places: but, as in a myſticall, or in a myſterie. Chryſoſtome, in that imperfect work, Matth. Hom. 11. In the conſecrated veſſels, not the true body of Chriſt, but the myſterie of Chriſts body is contained.
Propoſ. 3. In the ſacramentall Supper, the ſignes and things are united, by a ſacramentall union. This is it which is common to the whole kind of Sacraments: otherwiſe, this union were not ſacramentall, or of a Sacrament, but of a Supper. Now, in all other Sacraments, there is a relative union; that is, a myſticall ſignification, obſignation, exhibition and reception of the thing ſignified by externall ſymbols in the right uſe, which is not without faith and repentance in the receivers.
Reaſon 1. From the genus in all Sacraments, there is ſuch an union: therefore in this Supper alſo. The Antecedent is manifeſt out of the definition and chiefe end of Sacraments. Reaſ. 2. The bread is the bodie of Chriſt, either in the truth of the thing (as Auſtin ſpeaks in the ſentence of Proſper) or in a ſignifying myſterie: not in the truth of the thing, or eſſentially; becauſe there is no tranſubſtantiation: therefore in a ſignifying myſterie. Reaſ. 3. Hither belong all the Arguments, by which a ſacramentall phraſe is proved to be in the words of the Supper: for, a ſacramentall union begets ſacramentall phraſes. Reaſ. 4. The teſtimonies of Fathers, that the bread is a ſigne, a figure, a ſacrament of Chriſts bodie, Auguſt. contra Adim. c. 12. The Lord doubted not to ſay, This is my bodie, when he gave the ſigne of his bodie.
The Objection of Papiſts for Tranſubſtantiation, out of the words of the Supper.
That which Chriſt gave, and the Prieſt conſecrates, is Chriſts bodie; Ergo it is not bread: It followes, becauſe theſe are diſparata; As, this thing is a man; Ergo it is not an oxe. I anſwer, by denying that this argument is grounded upon the poſition of one ſpecies, to the removing of the diſparate ſpecies of the ſame genus; becauſe it is vicious proceeding, from the poſition of a ſacramentall relation, to the negation of the ſubject, or fundamentall: Such, as if I would ſay, This man is a father; Ergo he is not a man. This man is Ceſar; Ergo he is not a man: So they, This bread is Chriſts bodie; Ergo it is not bread. It is therefore fallacia accidentis, no leſſe abſurd, then if you ſhould reaſon from the poſition of the forme, to the negation of the matter: This thing is a table; Ergo it is not wood: For, though Chriſts bodie is not the forme, or accident of bread; yet the relation, which the bread, by vertue of the promiſe, hath to Chriſts bodie, is the forme of the Sacrament. So it doth not follow, The Dove is the holy Ghoſt; Ergo this is not a Dove. Circumciſion is the covenant; Ergo it is not circumciſion. The cup is the New Teſtament: Ergo, it is not the cup.
As for the teſtimonies of the Fathers, which the Papiſts object, concerning the changing of the ſymboles, the common anſwer is, That they are to be underſtood of a ſacramentall, not of an eſſentiall change; which is manifeſt out of the orthodoxall conſent of the Fathers on this Sacrament.
Queſt. 2. How, as well the ſymboles, as the celeſtiall things ſignified in the Supper, are exhibited and received.
About this queſtion, we are at controverſie both with the Pontificians and Ubiquitarians; becauſe both of them will have the things ſignified to be ſecretly and miraculouſly preſent in the ſignes, or ſpecies of the ſignes, and to be carried in, and handled by the Miniſters hands, and to be received into the mouths of the communicants. Wee teach on the contrary, that the things are exhibited with the ſignes, and are received together with them, in the lawfull uſe of the Supper, but in a different manner: The ſymboles are touched by the hands of the Miniſter, and received by the mouths of the communicants; but the things themſelves are exhibited by Chriſt himſelfe our high-Prieſt, and by faith are received of us. Which alſo may be explained in three Propoſitions; two negative, and one affirmative.
Propoſ. 1. The body and bloud of Chriſt, which are the things ſignified, are neither handled, nor exhibited by the hand of the Ministers, to the end, that they ſhould, in theſe ſymboles, be corporally received.
Reaſ. 1. Is negative from the whole kind of Sacraments: In no Sacrament doth the Miniſter handle, or give ſpirituall things ſignified: therefore neither in the Supper. The antecedent is proved both by induction, which is alſo plaine by the Adverſaries confeſſion; as alſo, by the analogie of Sacraments, and of the Word, Mark 1. I am the voice of a crier. John 1. I baptiſe with water: Hee that cometh after mee, ſhall baptiſe you with the holy Ghoſt, and with fire. 1 Corinth. 3.7. Neither is he that watereth, nor he that planteth any thing; but God, who giveth the encreaſe: Therefore it is ſo in the Sacraments, which are the viſible word. Reaſ. 2. The things ſignified are not in, with, or under the ſymboles, being there corporally preſent, as was ſhewed, Quest. 1. Propoſ. 2. therefore they are not handled by the Miniſters fingers, nor diſtributed. Reaſ. 3. The things ſignified in the Supper are ſpirituall, which are offered to the faithfull, in the promiſe of grace annexed to the ſymboles; but the promiſe of grace is not touched by the hand, &c. Reaſ. 4. The teſtimonies of Fathers: as, Chryſoft. ſerm. de Euch. in encaen. Doe not thinke, you that come to theſe myſteries, that you receive from man the divine body; that is, from the Miniſter; and many ſuch like.
Propoſ. 2. The body and bloud of Chriſt, which are the things ſignified, are not received with, in, or under the bread and wine, with the mouth of the body.
Reaſ. 1. Becauſe they are not corporally preſent with, in, or under the ſymboles, as was ſhewed, Queſt. 1. Prepoſ. 2. Reaſ. 2. Becauſe they goe not into the belly, which is appointed for corporall food, 1 Cor. 6.13. but whatſoever entreth into the mouth, goeth down into the belly, Matth. 15. Reaſ. 3. Becauſe the promiſe, by which the things are offered, is not received by the mouth, but by faith.
Propoſ. 3. The things ſignified, to wit, the body and bloud of Chriſt, are received by faith ſpiritually.
Reaſ. 1. From the genus, becauſe in all Sacraments the things ſignified are received by faith; by which alone as we are juſtified, ſo we receive all the benefits of the New Teſtament; by which faith Chriſt dwells in our hearts, Epheſ. 3.17. Reaſ. 2. Becauſe the promiſe of grace is not received but by faith; but the communion of the bodie and bloud of Chriſt, is that of the promiſe of grace. See the firſt volume of Ʋrſine. pag. 103.
The Arguments of a certaine famous Diſputer, for the orall manducation.
To whatſoever organ the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper doth agree, to that ſame it is needfull, that the eating of another thing ſhould agree: but to the mouth of the body, the eating of one thing; that is, of the bread in the Supper, doth agree: and therefore of another thing; that is, of Chriſts body. Anſw. The Major is true of foods that are naturally conjoyned, or contain each other: as meat, or fleſh-pies; but the bread and Chriſts bodie are not thus conjoyned: and therefore of theſe the Major is falſe. But he proves the Major: Whoſoever includes, under the ſame word of eating, bread and wine, the body and bloud of Chriſt, he alſo affirmes, that both are received by the ſame inſtrument; but Chriſt includes bread and wine, his body and bloud, within the ſame word of eating: Therefore Chriſt affirmes alſo, that both are received by the ſame inſtrument of eating. Anſw. 1. The Diſputer doth not conclude the Major that is denied, which he ſhould conclude by an univerſall Syllogiſme in Barbara: therefore his proofe is idle. Anſw. 2. The Major is a petition of the thing in queſtion, and is denied. The falſhood alſo is plaine out of John 3. where Chriſt, under the ſame word of birth, includes the ſpirit and fleſh: and yet it followes not, that both are borne after the ſame manner, or by the ſame inſtrument. Anſw. 3. The Minor is alſo falſe: For, the word Eat is referred to the conſecrated bread, and not to the bodie, but onelyonly by conſequence or analogie: for properly it belongs to that which Chriſt took with his hands, and broke; which was bread, and not his bodie. This reaſon is worth the noting; becauſe, according to the Papiſts, and the ſimple Conſubſtantiators, the bodie of Chriſt is not preſent, till the words of conſecration be uttered: but in the laſt inſtant of uttering theſe ſyllables, For this is my body, it begins to be preſent. But according to the Ubiquitaries, who are (as it were) chymicall Conſubſtantiators, it is preſent, as in any other bread; but is not eatable, till after the conſecration. Chriſt then did not command us to eat that in the bread, which as yet was not there, or not as yet eatable. We ſay briefly, that by the word of eating, is onelyonly commanded the orall manducation of the outward Sacrament, or the bread: but by the word of promiſe, This is my body, which is given for you; which promiſe agreeth with that, John 6.52. The bread which I will give is my fleſh, which I will give for the life of the world, is required faith, ſpiritually eating Chriſts bodie given for us, and drinking Chriſts bloud, powred out for us, for the remiſſion of ſins.
Yet, againe, the Grammarian goeth about to prove the Major of the Proſyllogiſme: The word that hath but one ſignification is to be underſtood in that one: But Manducation, as well of the bread, as of Chriſts body, hath but one ſignification; Ergo that one is to be underſtood of both. Anſw. 1. He failes againe in the proofe of his Major, becauſe he concludes the Major neither of the Sy…logiſme nor Proſyllogiſme, by any univerſall Syllogiſme in Barbara, as he ſhould have done. 2. The Minor is a demand of the thing in queſtion; for, he takes it for granted, that eate ye is meant as well of the body, as of the bread, which is the thing he ſhould prove: and that this is falſe, the ſtory of the Inſtitution tels us; for, Chriſt bodily did not lurke within the bread, but ſate at table, when of the bread which he received, broke, and gave to his Diſciples, he ſaid, Eate yee.
Queſtion 3. To whom the things ſignified are offered, and by whom received.
To this we anſwer in two Propoſitions, both being affirmative.
Propoſ. 1. The things ſignified in the Sacrament; to wit, the body and bloud of Chriſt, though they be offered to all, yet are received by the faithfull onelyonly.
Reaſ. 1. Becauſe the faithful only by faith receive the promiſe by which the things ſignified are offered. Reaſ. 2. Becauſe the beleevers alone have the Spirit of Chriſt, from which his living fleſh cannot be ſeparated. Reaſ. 3. Becauſe Chriſt dwels onelyonly in the faithfull, and they in him by faith, Epheſ. 3.17. Reaſ. 4. Becauſe the beleevers alone receive and have life eternall, John 3. and 6.
Propoſ. 2. Impious or incredulous men coming without faith, receive the ſignes without the thing ſignified; but, the things themſelves being proferred, they reject, becauſe of their infidelity.
For the Reaſons, ſee Explicat. Catechet. q. 81. Titulo, What the wicked receive in the Lords Supper. As for the Objections concerning wicked mens eating in the Supper, ſee ibid.