A collection of certaine learned discourses, written by that famous man of memory Zachary Ursine; doctor and professor of divinitie in the noble and flourishing schools of Neustad. For explication of divers difficult points, laide downe by that author in his catechisme. Lately put in print in Latin by the last labour of D. David Parry: and now newlie translated into English, by I.H. for the benefit and behoofe of our Christian country-man

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 profes∣sors 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 Cere∣monies and rites of the Supper are to bee distin∣guished from the doctrine, which is the promise of the Gospell annexed vnto the outward and visible rites.

2 Let them also learne to put a difference be∣tweene the questions cōtroversed, and not con¦trouersed, aswel concerning the rites, as con¦cerninge the doctrine.

3 Let them knowe that the questione contro∣versed 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 Sacra∣ment 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 be∣cause this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the generall and common vse of all Sacraments whatsoeuer; & also because Christ himselfe hath said of this Sacrament,* 1.1 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 profes∣sing 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 Transub∣stantiation, or Consubstantiation, or only a mysticall re∣ference or relation of the one to the other.

To this question we make an answere conso∣nant to the Catholicke faith in three seuerall pro∣positions, the two of which are Negatiue, and third Affirmatiue.

1 Proposition.

The Sig••es and the Things are not vnited by Tran∣substantion, that is, by such a charge as in which the substance of ••he Signe are transformed into the substāce of the Thinges, the accidents onely remaining.

The reasons of the first proposition.

1 The first reason is because as Ireneus saith there are two thinges which haue a Sacramenta∣ry proportiō in the Eucharist, which the Accidents of bread and wine, & the substance of the body and bloud of Christ can by no meanes haue.

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 Fa∣thers reteine the name of bread in the Lords Sup∣per; and when they speake by way of Hype••b••le of chāging of the bread,* 1.2 they 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 sacramen∣tall change in these wordes; Christ honoured the visi∣ble 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 vnto vs, not vvhere Christs body is, neither what it is IN, WITH▪ or VNDER the bread: but what the bread it selfe is▪ and ought to be vnto the godly in this vse.

2 The second Reason is, because the body of Christ is a true instrumentall, finite, & visible bo∣dy; 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 Fa∣thers 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 sancti∣fied vessels is conteined not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of Christs body.

The third proposition.

III. The Signes and Things haue 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; other∣wise 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 vnto 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 Sa∣craments.

2 The second is framed on this manner;

• The bread is the body of Christ either in the truth of the thing (as Augustine accor∣ding 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 myste∣rie 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 belong∣ing. For a sacramental vnion requireth sacramen∣tall phrases and termes.

4 The fourth is, because we haue the testimo∣nies 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 local∣ly and in place, but mystically, and spiritually.

The obiection of Papists for their Transub∣stantiation drawne out of the words of the Supper.

• This which Christ gaue,* 1.3 and the Preist con∣secrateth 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, ther∣fore it is not an Oxe.

Wee deny that this argument is framed, as you say,* 1.4 from the inducing of one speciall by the re∣mouing of the contrarie of the same kinde: be∣cause it is rather a faulty processe in argumentati∣on 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 vnto 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 Circum∣cision. The cupp is the New Testament; therfore it is no longer a cuppe.

The answere to all the testimonies of the Fa∣thers which the Papists alleadge for the change of the signes is common; that they are all to hee vn∣derstood 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 vs both with the Papists & the Vbiquitaries, because both of them are of opinion that the things being present in their signes, or vnder the shewes of the signes are covertly and miraculously caried vp and downe in the hands of the ministers, hād∣led by them, and put into the mouthes of the Communicants. We contrariwise teach, that the thinges with their signes are both togither exhi∣bited 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 inducti∣on or instance in every Sacrament, which is evi∣dent 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 bap∣tise 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 VNDER the signes, as hath beene shewed.
• Therefore they are not handled, or distribu∣ted by the hand of the Minister.

3 The third reason proceedeth thus,

• The things signified in the Supper are spiri∣tuall, 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 VNDER the bread and wine by the mouth of the body.

Reasons of the second proposition.

1 The first is, because they are not bodily pre∣sent with, in, and vnder the signes as hath beene shewed quest. •• propos 2.

2 The secōd i•• because they passe into the bel∣ly 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 com∣munion 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 instru∣ment.
• 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, be∣cause an vniuersal affirmatiue should be concluded in Barbara.

2 The Maior beggeth that which is in contro∣versie and is denyed. The falsenesse thereof appeareth Iohn the third, where CHRIST in∣cludeth 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 vnto 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 con∣substantiators, it is there indeede, as in any other breade, but it is not yet edible vntill after con∣secration. 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 bo∣dy 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 haue bin concluded in Barbara.

2 The Minor is a begging of that which is in cō∣troversie.

The third question.

Vnto 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 re∣ceiue the promises by faith.

2 Reason. Because they alone that beleeue haue the spirit of Christ, from the which his life-gi∣uing fleshe cannot be separated.

3 Reason. Because in them onely that beleeue, Christ remaineth, and they in Christ Eph. 3 17.

4 Reason. Because they alone that beleeue re∣ceiue and haue 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 vn∣god••y, Ibid. pag. 5••2.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Luc. 22. 19. 20.
• * 1.2

  The chāge of the things in the Sacra∣ments ••••s the cause of the change of the nāes
• * 1.3

  Obiect.
• * 1.4

  Auns.