Item Information | Institutions of Christian religion framed out of Gods word, and the writings of the best diuines, methodically handled by questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know, or practise the will of God. Written in Latin by William Bucanus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Lausanna. And published in English by Robert Hill, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and Fellow of Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge, for the benefit of our English nation, to which is added in the end the practise of papists against Protestant princes. | Early English Books Online 2 | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections

How is the other Sacrament of the New Testament called?

What is the efficient, principall, cause of the Lords Supper?

Seeing that Christ hauing Supped distributed the Supper to the Disciples in the euening, whether is it lawfull for vs to giue it in the morning, and to them which are fasting?

Seing that Christ being about to celebrate the Supper, abased himselfe to wash the Disciples feete and said vnto them, I haue giuing you an example, that ye should doe, euen as I haue done to you. Whether are we being about to communicate, tyed to this precept concerning washing of feete?

VVho are the fellow helpers, or administers, or seruice able causes of the Supper of the Lord?

For whom is the the Supper of the Lord instituted?

Of how many parts doth the institution of the Lords Supper consist?

What did Christ when he instituted his Supper?

I not the holy Supper a double Sacrament, seing that the signe thereof is double?

But why would Christ haue vs vse a twofold Signe?

Whether therefore doe they sinne which take away the cup from the Eucharisticall bread?

Whether or no, for the discommodities which Gerson doth reckē vp as, 1. The liqour by some chance may be spilt, 2. It cannot be cari∣ed about without daunger. 3. In winter it soone waxeth sower. 4. In sommer, it purifieth and hath wormes. 5. It bringeth a lothing to thē which drinke. 6. In some countries it is hardly gotten. 7 By this meanes, lay mē touch the cup. 8. Some of them haue beards, 9. Some are taken with the palsey. 10. The dignity of the priest & of lay mē is not alike: are these causes weightie inough, & iust for which by good right one parte of the sacramēt could be takē away frō the laicks?

Wherefore did Christ take bread, not breads?

What manner of bread vsed Christ, vnleauened bread, or leuened?

Wherefore ordained he bread to be the sacrament of his bodie?

Why did Christ take bread, rather then flesh, or other meat to institute his Supper?

What maner of wine vsed Christ, & taught by his exāple to be vsed?

Wherefore instituted he the Sacramen of his bloud with vvine?

What if bread such as wee haue, and wine be wanting in some countries, with what signes is the supper to be administred?

VVhat need is there now of those two signes, that is to say, of bread and wine, seeing that, the whole humanitie of Christ consisting of his parts, of bodie and bloud, doth liue glorious in the heauens: and by reason of concomitancie, that is to say, a naturall ioyning together of the liuing bodie and the bloud: the whole may be signified and gi∣uen in seuerall kindes: and where the quicke bodie is present, there also must the bloud and soule be present: and by reason of the hypo∣staticall vnion, the diuinitie also may be there: and so there may be no controuersie moued concerning those things that be equiualent, but one may suffice in steed of two. From whence is that Rime of Thomas, Caro cibus, sanguis potus, manet tamen Christus totus sub vtraque specie, that is to say, The flesh is meate, the bloud is drinke, yet Christ remayneth whole, vnder both kindes?

But what: If a man at this day be conuersant in those places where one part of the Supper is taken from the laity, shall he altogether abstaine from the vse of the communion?

What did Christ when he had taken the bread?

What rites are they?

What did Christ after the blessing?

Is the breaking or cutting of bread an indifferent ceremony?

ƲƲhat did the Lord concerning the bread broken, and the wine powred forth?

ƲƲhat words did Christ ioyne to his action.

What doth he commaund his, to do in the supper?

Did not Christ in the last Supper offer himselfe to God the Father, vnder the forme of bread and wine, and com∣maund the same to be done vntill the end of the word?

Because in the celebration of Mysteries, there hath beene alwaies a threefold oblatin obserued in the Christian Church: one meere spirituall, whereby euery one doth present himselfe before God, with a contrite heart, and endued with faith: another visible, euery one bringing something, least he should appeare before God emptie, Ex. 23.15. The third, both of the bodie and of the bloud of the Lord himselfe, whether are both the latter iustly taken away by our Churches?

What is it to Take?

What is declared by this receiuing of bread and wine into the hands?

What doth the bodilie eating and drinking of this bread and this wine, and moreouer the conueying of it into our body signifie?

Is the giuing of the signes and eating them with the mouth and the giuing and eating of the things signified one and the same in number and kinde?

Seeing that the flesh of Christ is corporall, is not the eating of it in the Supper also corporall?

Because the commaunding words of the Supper; Take and eate, doe speake of a corporall action and of one eating with the mouth: And concerning that, which ought to be taken and eaten, Christ saith a little after; This is my bodie: whether therefore is the true bodie of Christ taken by a cor∣porall action and eating?

What is it to eate the bodie and to drinke the bloud of Christ?

Seing that Christ is giuen daily in the word to be eaten by faith, and is there eaten of the faithfull, Iohn. 6.35. why is there neede of the supper?

Which are the Sacramentall or definitiue words, or the words of promise, which the Lord added to the signes?

Which is the subiect of the former part, and also the Attribute?

Is the verbe Est, to be taken essentially, or substantiuely and in his naturall signification?

According to what sense, is the bread of the Lords Sup∣per the bodie of Christ?

What manner therefore of predication is it?

Is not the proprietie of the speach, or the word to bee kept in the verie words of the Supper?

Is it not a proper proposition, wherein the Subiect and the attribute are vnderstood so to be coupled, that the Attribute is in the Subiect, or in the place wherein the subiect is as Deut. 12, 23. The bloud is the life because it con∣teineth the life?

Are the places of Scripture, which are the grounds of Doctrines, or of the Articles of faith, and of the commandements of God, alwaies to be taken without figures altogether, as the words doe sound?

But is it not absurd, that Christ spake tropically, (and there∣fore enigmatically, that is, obscurely, or doubtfully) in the institution of his supper with the Dis∣ciples which were rude and simple?

Which is the other part of words of Christ concerning the bread?

ƲƲhat is signified in this proposition?

What are the words of the Lord concerning the cup?

Whether may this proposition of Christ. This is my bloud, be so com∣pared with that of Moses saying, Exod. 24.8. (concerning the bloud of calues, this is the bloud of the couenant, that both here & there, bloud being in deed, & in it owne essence, (as that being holden in the hands of Moses, and this in the hands of Christ) be demonstra∣ted properly, and not figuratiuely?

What is the new testament in the bloud of Christ?

Why said not the lord, This is my body of the new Testament, as he said, this cup is the new testament in my bloud?

Which is the other branch?

From whence doe you gather besides, that Christ spake Tropically?

Did Christ Iesus take part of the same signes?

Is there that vertue, and that sense of the words of Christ, wherewith he instituted this Sacrament, that as often as vpon the bread and wine, they are recited by the Priest who hath a purpose to conse∣crate, then the substance of bread and wine, eyther by Analysis is resolued into the first matter, or euen into nothing: so that in steed thereof doe succeed the bodie and bloud of Christ: or by a simple mutation is turned into the substance of the true bodie, and of the true bloud of Christ, so that the substance of bread is formed into the flesh of of Christ, the bare accidents of breas and wine remay∣ning, hanging without a subiect?

Is not the bread of the Supper, at leastwise by a miracle turned into the bodie of Christ?

Is not that true which Christ spake, and can it not be performed by him?

Whether doth the omnipotency of God take away the discommodi∣ties which follow transubstantiation, & consubstantiation?

Is it true which our aduersaries take for granted, that Christ, when he appeared to Paule in his iourney, Act. 9.17. and stood by him in the Castle, Act. 23.11. was in bodie, both in heauen and on earth together?

Is hee a manifest denier of the power of God, which denieth that by his absolute power he doth bring to passe that the bo∣die continuing in his propertie, may be in many places after another and di∣uers maner?

Is the contradiction taken away in the diuersitie of respects, and of these names, if it be said, that the bodie of Christ in truth and verie deed is in heauen according to the naturall properties of a true bo∣die, circumscriptiuely, locally, visibly, and after a naturall manner: and that it is by the power of God, also in truth and in verie deed in many places, or euerie where, or in the supper, but sacramentally, inuisibly, supernaturally illocally, after a cele∣stiall and miraculous manner: and if it be said that the nature of Christ in the propertie of his nature is circumscribed, and visible, but in regard of the vnion vncircumscribed and inuisible?

Whether, as the eye hath not the force of seeing in it selfe, but by reason of the vnion with the soule, and receiueth it in the vnion: so the flesh of Christ receiueth not those pro∣per things in it selfe, but hath them truely and really in that wonderfull vnion?

Must wee altogether abandon mans reason, and the prin∣ciples of Philosophie in those things which are af∣firmed concerning the body of Christ?

Whether, vnlesse the bodie of Christ be determined to be euery where, by this, is it separated and pulled asunder from the Diuine nature, which is eueriewhere, and to which it selfe is personally vn∣ited, or hath the body of the Lord obtained that, by the vnion, that it should be wheresoeuer the word is.

But whether did that which Christ said Ioh. 3.13. No man ascen∣deth vp to heauen, but the sonne of man which is in heauen, make the humane nature of Christ while it was in earth, to haue beene also at the same time in heauen?

It is not vniust to subiect the nature of Christs glorious body, which is called spirituall, to the lawes of common nature?

Whether doe the Orthodoxall Fathers when they write that the bread which the Lord did reach to the Disciples, not changed in forme but in nature, by the almightie power of his word, was made flesh. Cy∣prian. That Christ bare himselfe in his hands. Augustine. That the bodie of the Lord, doth enter into our mouth, That the tongue is made bloudie with the bloud of Christ, and that Christ himselfe is seene, touched, broken, and that teeth are fastned to his flesh, whither doe they I say speake properly and without trope?

What meane the ancient fathers, whiles that, euery where they doe ad∣mire with astonishment the mysterie of the Supper, they call it the Fear∣full mysterie, they require Faith, they celebrate the power of God, they deny that the order of Nature is to be sought in the bodie of Christ, they attribute a conuer∣sion to the signes?

Whether, when we say of a firie sword, of an infant lying in a cradle, of wine contained in a vessell and the like, This is Fire, this is an Infant, this is wine. And Deut. 12.23. The bloud is the life, because it containeth the life: (by which speaches the presence of the Attribute is manifestly affirmed:) are therefore the words of Christ to be vnder∣stoode of his bodilie presence at the place where the bread is?

What is therefore the naturall and proper sense of the words of the Lords Supper?

Why had the Lord rather vse this phrase, This is my bodie, and this is my bloud, then to say, this signifieth my bodie, and my bloud?

Whether, if the bodie of Christ bee denyed to bee in the bread of the Supper, therefore Christ himselfe is said to bee al∣together absent from his Supper?

Is the bodie of the Lord truely and Substantially present in the Supper?

Are these propositions contradictorie, Christ is corporally in heauen, and Christ with his body and bloud is in the Supper?

Is not the Supper of Christ made voide, if the very flesh of Christ be determined to be so farre essentially absent from this action, as the heauens are from the earth?

Are earthly and celestiall gifts present after the same manner of presence?

Which therefore is the thing signified of the Lords Supper?

What is vnderstood by naming of bodie, and bloud in the Attri∣bute of these propositions, This is my bodie, and This is my bloud?

VVhether in the Supper of the Lord, for the thing it selfe of the Sa∣crament, doe wee partake of his merits alone, or the liuely ope∣ration, gifts, or benefits of Christ, without Christ himself, that is, without participation of the body and bloud of Christ, or doe we partake of Christ himselfe, with his benefits?

Can this proposition be endured, The bodie of Christ is exhibited with the bread?

Of how many sorts is this vnion or coniunction in the vse of the Lords Supper?

Of what qualitie is the coniunction of the signes and of the thing signified in the supper of the Lord?

Seing that Aristotle, booke, 5. chap. 6. of the Metaphysicks doth teach that there are fower kinds of them which are one, In number figure, generall, Analogie, which of these waies is the bread the bodie of Christ?

Whether can that supernaturall coniunction, whereby the Deitie of Christ is personally conioyned with the humanity, or that miraculous whereby God hauing taken some visible shapes disclosed himselfe to some men, as when God is said to haue appeared to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, or when the holy Ghost descended vpon Christ in the shape of a Doue Mat. 3.16. or when it was giuen to the Disciples by the breathing of Christ, and with firie tongues. Iohn. 20.22. Act. 2.3, take place here?

Is it true in all things, that those things which are ioyned by Gods ordinance in a peculiar manner, are affirmed one of another, as This man is God, the Doue is the Holy Ghost?

Why therefore are the Sacramentall signes called Exhibitiue?

But Irenaeus saith, that the Eucharist doth consist of two things, of an Earthly and a Heauenly.

To what purpose commaunded the Lord to make his Supper?

Of what qualitie ought that remembrance to bee?

Which are the causes, for which Christ ordained, the me∣morie of himselfe to be celebrated amongst vs?

What is it to shew the death of the Lord?

Is Christ to be adored in the bread of the Supper?

Is that which is left of the Supper to be laid vp, to be caried a∣bout to be seene, or to be adored as though some holines did remaine inherent in it?

What is the second end?

Which is the third end?

Of how many sorts is the coniunction of our nature with Christ?

What doth the word Felowship signifie in the saying of Paule, that is, which coniunction of those three doth it signifie?

What is it to communicate with Christ?

What therefore is that which is conioyned vnto vs?

How is this vnion made, whether by a reall, actuall, and corporall, in∣uisible falling downe of Christs flesh into vs, and by a naturall touch∣ing with ours, or by a connexion, contiguitie, locall indistance, orall perception, or by an essentiall commixtion of the flesh of Christ and ours, or by an ingresse of his bodie and soule, or by a corporall coniunction.

Which is the proper cause or the meanes, and the Energe∣ticall, that is, efficient cause of this our commu∣nion with Christ.

By what meanes doe wee in like manner communicate with the flesh of Christ?

Which are the outward instruments of this com∣munion?

Is this sacramentall coniunction of vs with Christ necessarie?

When as the Fathers doe plainely affirme that Christ is in vs corpo∣rally, naturally, by naturall participation, by corporall vnion, or according to the flesh, and as waxe melted in in the fire is mingled with other wax likewise melted, so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ, that he is in vs, and we in him; Whether doe they referre these sayings to the manner of the presence of the participation and vnion?

How are the faithfull said to be partakers of the diuine nature? 2. Pet. 1.4.

Whether is our soule onely without the bodie ioyned with the soule onely of Christ, or also our flesh with the flesh of Christ?

To which first is our minde, and by consequence our flesh, ioyned, to the word or to the flesh?

Seeing, the end why we are vnited to the flesh of Christ is, that being quickened by it we may liue a life eternall, by what meanes is the flesh of Christ, that is, the hu∣manitie, quickening vs?

Is it reall and true, or doth this vnion of vs with Christ, consist in the apprehension alone of the minde, like as we doe comprehend, and haue in mind things and substances in the phantasy and mind by formes that may be vnderstood, but not that they are in verie deed vnited in vs?

Seeing that, the bodie of Christ is in heauen, neyther shall re∣turne from thence before the last day, how can he be conioyned to vs really and indeed?

But faith is onely a conceiuing and imagination of a thing absent: Therefore the bodie of Christ is not ioyned to vs in verie deed, neyther is present to our faith in the Supper: but by imagination or contemplation, vehe∣hement cogitation and assent.

By what similitudes is this communion illustrated in the scriptures?

What is the end and fruit of this our communion with Christ?

Which is the forth end, of the Lords supper.

Which is the fift end?

ƲƲhich is the sixt end?

ƲƲhich is the seauenth end?

Which is the eight?

Whether is the efficacie or fruit of the Eucharist equally alike to all?

Which is the right order of administring the Supper?

In what place is it to be administred?

At what time, and how often ought this Supper to be celebrated?

After what manner ought wee to come to the Lords Supper?

How many sorts are of them which come to the Supper of the Lord?

Who doe come worthily?

But for such as doe repent, and yet are earnstely afraid, may not these flee the vse of the Sacrament, by reason of former slips?

What counsell therefore, doth the Apostle giue to them which come to the Supper?

What must we examine?

Who ought to take this examination?

Is it gathered, from this Pronoune, , that is, himselfe, that euerie one is to bee left to his owne priuate iudgement, and that the Sacrament is not to bee denyed to any man comming to the Lords table?

Who doe come vnworthily to the Lords table?

VVhat is the punishment of them which eate vnworthily?

To whom therefore is the Lords Supper to be giuen?

Are godly and honest persons to bee kept from the Lords Supper for beeing in warre, or ha∣uing controuersies depending in Lawe?

What is it to make difference of the Lords bodie?

Doe they of the first sort of vnworthy communicants, that is to say the wicked eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of Christ vnto the iudgement of their owne condemnation truely; and, not refusing, but receiuing it, are made guiltie of Christs bodie?

Can a man be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which eateth not his bodie, nor drinketh his bloud Essentially?

Whether may the minister without perill of conscience ad∣mit all to the Lords Supper, seeing he cannot know who are worthie, and who are vnworthie?

Is it a thing arbitrarie or indifferent to vse the Supper of the Lord, or to abstaine from it?

Shall wee need any sacramentall signes of Christs bodie and bloud in that life that shall be euer∣lasting?

What is contrarie to this doctrine?

Actions

Contents