Disputation LIX: On the Holy Supper of the Lord

Disputation LIX

On the Holy Supper of the Lord

De Sacra Coena Dominica

Presiding	Jacobus Arminius
Respondent	Ludovicus Michael Gallus Armoricus
Date	1606-11-15
Text printed from	Syntagma disputationum theologicarum ... quarto repetitarum (Rotterdam: Joannes Leonardi à Berewout, 1615), pp. 419–428
Witness	Collected 1615 reprint. Stanglin LIX is edited from the separate 1606 quarto (Leiden UL 236 A 9: 118), NOT collated here. The half-title styles the respondent 'Ludovico Michäele Gallo-Armorico'. Its date, read from the plate, is '15. Nov. 1606'; the edition's register of respondents gives 25 Nov 1606. The two are not reconciled here; the chunk's date field is the reprint's. The first numeral is heavily inked but has the shape of the '1' in '1606'. The print numbers two consecutive theses XVI and has no XVIII; the numbering is left standing. No printed reading reverses the argument. Readings to check against the quarto: the Greek σφραγίδες (VIII, XI); the marginal '1 Cor. 11:8' (X); the marginal references to XIII ('&c. 3', '1 Ioan. 3:18, 36'). Minor garbles left standing: 'sanguinus' (I), 'methonymicae' (I), 'Sanguns' (X), 'benificiis' (XVI bis), 'legitimis' (XVII). Coordinator's check of the plate (2026-09-16): the date does read 15 Nov. 1606, but the Syntagma gives the same date to the preceding disputation, XLIII (Gomarus, De Paedobaptismo), and the cycle doesn't otherwise double up days. So the reprint's 15 may be a compositor's repetition, which would favour the quarto's 25. Unresolved until collation.

Headnote

Occasion. The forty-fourth disputation of the fourth Leiden cycle, defended under Arminius by Ludovicus Michael, a Breton ("Gallo-Armoricus"). The reprint dates it 15 November 1606. Its preface says it follows the disputations on baptism, the first sacrament of the New Testament, and so completes the pair that Disputation XLI (arm-pubdisp-56) set out: baptism the sacrament of initiation, the Supper the sacrament of continuation and confirmation. It is followed in the Syntagma by Trelcatius's Disputation XLV, De Missa (4 December 1606), which opens by setting its examination of the papal Mass under this treatment of the Supper.

Authorship. By the convention of the Leiden faculty the theses are the presiding professor's; the student defended them. Stanglin argues the case for Arminius's authorship of the disputations at length, and it is his argument, not ours.

The doctrinal move. Arminius settles the name (I–II) and gives the definition (III). He then runs the Supper through the causal scheme of the general disputation: the author (IV); the matter taken relatively, as elements and rites (V–VIII); the matter taken absolutely, symbols and thing together (IX); the external and internal form (X–XII). From that double matter he derives a double mode of reception (XIII–XIV), and from the double reception a double presence, sacramental for all communicants and real for believers alone (XV–XVI). Neither requires the body on earth. He closes with the end and the lawful use (XVI bis–XVII).

Where it is answered. No answer by Gomarus or in Wesley's writings is identified for this disputation. It names no opponent. The positions it excludes in VIII and XVI are named by doctrine (transubstantiation, consubstantiation), not by author.

Preface¶

Latin

Quùm superioribus disputationibus de Baptismo priore N. T. Sacramento, quod Initiationis dicitur, actum sit, sequitur ut de posteriore, Coena scil. Dõ. quae continuationis et confirmationis Sacramentum est, dicamus.

English

Since the preceding disputations have treated of baptism, the former sacrament of the New Testament, which is called the sacrament of initiation, it follows that we speak of the latter, namely the Supper of the Lord, which is the sacrament of continuation and confirmation.

Thesis I¶

Latin

Multae quidem et variae sunt huius Sacramenti appellationes, in ipsâ etiam Scripturâ (ut nihil de iis, quae apud Patres, dicamus) veluti Corpus et Sanguis Domini Matth. 26. 28. fractio panis et Poculum Domini 1. Cor. 11. Communio corporis et sanguinus Christi, et mensa Domini

Cor. 10. Verùm illis omissis quae methonymicae et synecdochicae sunt, Coenae Dominicae appellationem, qua usus est Paulus 1. Cor. 11. vers. 20. et 21. retinemus, quippe quae totum hoc mysterium maxime denotet, nosque revocet ad ultimam illam Coenam, in quâ Dominus illud instituit.

English

Many indeed and various are the names of this sacrament, even in Scripture itself (to say nothing of those found among the Fathers): such as the body and blood of the Lord (Matt. 26:28), the breaking of bread and the cup of the Lord (1 Cor. 11), the communion of the body and blood of Christ, and the table of the Lord (1 Cor. 10). But leaving aside those that are metonymic and synecdochic, we retain the name the Lord's Supper, which Paul used in 1 Cor. 11, verses 20 and 21, since it most fully denotes this whole mystery and calls us back to that last Supper in which the Lord instituted it.

Thesis II¶

Latin

Dicitur enim Coena quia convivium est (sacrum quidem et mysticum) quod primùm celebratum fuit et institutum tempore vespertinõ, inter coenandum; Quae temporis circumstantia, quia per occasionem tantùm à Domino usurpata fuit, de essentia mysterii non est, ideoque pro ratione variae occasionis et necessitatis Ecclesiae mutari potest. Dominica v. dicitur, cùm quia à Domino primùm celebrata, imò instituta fuit, tùm etiam quia in hoc Sacro convivio Caro et Sanguis Domini comedenda et bibenda apponuntur, totaque haec actio peragi debet in Domini recordationem.

Marg. Mat. 26:20 &c. · 1 Cor. 11:24, 25, 26

English

For it is called a supper because it is a banquet (a sacred and mystical one, to be sure) which was first celebrated and instituted in the evening, during supper. That circumstance of time, because the Lord made use of it only as the occasion offered, is not of the essence of the mystery, and can therefore be changed according to the measure of the Church's varying occasion and necessity. And it is called the Lord's, both because it was first celebrated, indeed instituted, by the Lord, and also because in this sacred banquet the flesh and blood of the Lord are set before us to be eaten and drunk, and this whole action must be performed in remembrance of the Lord.

Thesis III¶

Latin

Sic enim Coenam Dominicam definimus, ut sit N. T. Sacramentum, à Christo Mediatore in Ecclesia ad finem usque seculi institutum, per quod convenienti Panis et Vini, ac utriusque externae distributionis et perceptionis, ad Corpus et Sanguinem Christi, ac utriusque internam exhibitionem et perceptionem, analogiâ, foederatis Dei iisque adultis et fidelibus, sua cum Christo et beneficiis ipsius communio magis ac magis confirmatur et obsignatur: et vicissim illi Christi recordatione, et beneficii Redemptionis annuntiatione officium suum erga Deum et Christum, mutuamque inter se charitatem testentur, porroque spondeant.

Marg. 1 Cor. 11:26 · 1 Cor. 10:16 & 17

English

For we define the Lord's Supper thus: that it is a sacrament of the New Testament, instituted by Christ the Mediator in the Church until the end of the world, through which, by a fitting analogy of the bread and wine, and of the outward distribution and reception of both, to the body and blood of Christ, and to the inward exhibition and reception of both, their communion with Christ and his benefits is more and more confirmed and sealed to those in covenant with God, being adults and faithful; and by which they in turn, through the remembrance of Christ and the proclamation of the benefit of redemption, may testify, and pledge for the future, their office toward God and Christ and their mutual love for one another.

The definition places the whole working of the sacrament in an analogy: outward bread and wine, outwardly distributed and received, answer to Christ's body and blood, inwardly exhibited and received. It restricts the recipients twice, to adults and to the faithful, before the theses on reception (XIII–XV) argue for either restriction.

Thesis IV¶

Latin

Authorem huius Sacramenti dicimus esse Christum, eumque Mediatorem; ille enim solus (quippe non tantum homo, verumetiam Deus, atque adeò Dominus ac Caput Ecclesiae à Patre fuerit constitutus) ius habet praescribendi leges Ecclesiae, praesertim vero hoc Sacramentum instituendi, cuius analogia ad ipsum referatur, vis et efficacia ab eo pendeat.

Marg. Ioan. 1 · Heb. 1 · Eph. 1:2‹2› & seq.

English

We say that the author of this sacrament is Christ, and Christ as Mediator. For he alone (since he is not only man but also God, and so was appointed by the Father Lord and Head of the Church) has the right to prescribe laws to the Church, and above all to institute this sacrament, whose analogy is referred to him and whose force and efficacy depend on him.

Thesis V¶

Latin

Materia relatè considerata sunt ipsa Symbola à Christo usurpata et instituta ad communionem cum ipso nostram significandam, et obsignandam; quae sunt tùm Elementa, tùm Ritus et Ceremoniae. Elementa sunt Panis et Vinum, quae verbo institutionis Domini à communi usu (qui est ut sint corporis alimenta) ad sacrum usum, hunc scil. ut sint signa sacra spiritualis animarum cibi, videl. Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, sunt separata et sanctificata. Non g. talia sunt naturâ suâ, nec etiam quo ad naturam suam, aut proprietates naturales sed tantùm quoad usum mutantur.

English

The matter, considered relatively, is the symbols themselves, used and instituted by Christ to signify and seal our communion with him; and these are both elements and rites and ceremonies. The elements are the bread and wine, which by the word of the Lord's institution have been separated and sanctified from common use (which is that they be nourishment for the body) to sacred use, namely this: that they be sacred signs of the spiritual food of souls, that is, of the body and blood of Christ. They are not, therefore, such by their own nature; nor are they changed as to their nature or natural properties, but only as to their use.

Thesis VI¶

Latin

Ceremoniae seu Ritus à Christo usurpati, et ex illius institutione usurpandi apud tres Evangelistas et Paulum nobis ita describuntur, ut quaedam pertineant ad eos qui hoc Sacramentum distribuunt, quaedam ad eos qui ei communicant, Quae ad illos pertinent, sunt. 1. Panem et Vinum accipere. 2. benedicere seu gratias agere, 3. Panem frangere. 4. Dare sive distribuere. Primum necessarium est ad duo postrema. Secundum semper ex officio incumbit ante cibi sumptionem, sed praesertim et peculiariter in hoc sacro convivio. Tertium, Christum cruciatibus et doloribus fractum sive passum repraesentat. Quartum denique nostris sensibus testificatur I. Christum suum Corpus in cruciatus et mortem traditum, et Sanguinem effusum, atque adeò se totum animis nostris exhibere, et in vitam aeternam dare.

Marg. Matth. 26:26, &c. · Marc. 14:22, &c. · Luc. 22:19, &c. · 1 Cor. 11:23, &c.

English

The ceremonies or rites used by Christ, and to be used by his institution, are so described to us by the three Evangelists and by Paul that some pertain to those who distribute this sacrament, and some to those who communicate in it. Those that pertain to the former are: 1. to take the bread and wine; 2. to bless, or give thanks; 3. to break the bread; 4. to give, or distribute. The first is necessary for the last two. The second is always incumbent as a duty of office before the taking of food, but especially and peculiarly in this sacred banquet. The third represents Christ broken, or suffering, by torments and pains. The fourth, lastly, testifies to our senses that Jesus Christ exhibits to our souls his body delivered up to torments and death and his blood poured out, and so himself whole, and gives himself to eternal life.

Thesis VII¶

Latin

Ab iis vero qui huic Sacramento communicant hi Ritus sunt observandi. 1. accipere Panem et Vinum, atque ex utroque comedere et bibere; et haec maximè necessaria sunt: quippe quorum gratia caetera fiunt: testantur enim et obsignant communicationem quam habemus cum Corpore et Sanguine Christi. Caeterùm haec omnia symbola sive Elementa, sive Ritus suam habent necessitatem, veritatem et virtutem ex Domini praescriptione et promissione, quarum idcircò fidelis recitatio et clara explicatio huius Sacramenti distributioni praemitti debet; quod pertinet ad benedictionem.

English

But by those who communicate in this sacrament these rites are to be observed: 1. to take the bread and wine, and to eat and drink of both; and these are the most necessary, since the rest are done for their sake, for they testify and seal the communication which we have with the body and blood of Christ. Moreover, all these symbols, whether elements or rites, have their necessity, truth and virtue from the Lord's prescription and promise. A faithful recitation and clear explanation of these must therefore be set before the distribution of this sacrament; and this pertains to the blessing.

Thesis VIII¶

Latin

Praescriptionem seu mandatum dedit Dominus horum rituum peragendorum, quùm simul atque ipse illos peregisset, dixerit, Hoc facite; quùm vero dixerit, Hoc est corpus meum &c. et Hic est sanguis meus &c. promisit illis, qui his ritibus legitime usurpatis, Panem et Vinum acciperent, manducarent, et biberent, se Corpus suum et Sanguinem in cibum spiritualis et aeternae vitae certò ipsorum animis traditurum fidei ore manducandum. Horsum enim tendit illa locutio, quâ tribuit elementis, Pani et Vino, quod sint Corpus suum et Sanguis suus. Non enim talia sunt substantiâ suâ, aut per quandam Transubstantiationem, aut Consubstantiationem, aut aliquam aliam realem ac substantialem conversionem (sic enim non essent Sacramenta) sed quod Christus illa instituerit ut sint certa signa et σφραγίδες Corporis et Sanguinis ipsius, atque adeò idonea organa, per quae Spiritu suo sese nobis cum omnibus suis beneficiis communicet.

English

The Lord gave the prescription, or command, for performing these rites when, as soon as he had performed them himself, he said, Do this. And when he said, This is my body, etc., and This is my blood, etc., he promised to those who, these rites being lawfully used, should take, eat and drink the bread and wine, that he would certainly deliver his body and blood to their souls, as the food of spiritual and eternal life, to be eaten by the mouth of faith. For that is where the expression tends by which he attributes to the elements, the bread and wine, that they are his body and his blood. For they are not such by their substance, nor by some transubstantiation or consubstantiation, or any other real and substantial conversion (for then they would not be sacraments), but because Christ instituted them to be sure signs and seals (σφραγίδες) of his body and blood, and so fit instruments through which he communicates himself to us by his Spirit with all his benefits.

The general disputation excluded "transmutation" and "consubstantiation" from the internal form (arm-pubdisp-56, X). Here the same exclusion is made against the words of institution, together with "any other real and substantial conversion". The parenthesis is the argument: a sign changed into its thing is no longer a sign, and so no longer a sacrament.

Thesis IX¶

Latin

Ex iis quae dicta sunt liquet, quae sit materia huius Sacramenti absolutè considerata; scilicet, tùm symbola ipsa, quae diximus, tùm res, cuius sunt symbola: videlicet Christi Corpus in mortem traditum, et Sanguis in cruce effusus, vel totus Christus cum omnibus iis, quae nobis mortis suae merito comparavit, adeoque nostra cum ipso simulque cum illis ipsius beneficiis communio.

English

From what has been said it is clear what the matter of this sacrament is, considered absolutely: namely, both the symbols themselves, of which we have spoken, and the thing of which they are symbols, that is, the body of Christ delivered up to death and the blood poured out on the cross; or the whole Christ with all the things he has procured for us by the merit of his death; and so our communion with him and, together with him, with those benefits of his.

Thesis X¶

Latin

Unde etiam duplex consideratur forma: una symbolorum et externa, quae est, tum verbum institutionis et promissionis: per illud enim Panis et Vinum Ritusque externi in illis communicandis usurpati, fiunt signa Corporis et Sanguns Christi, ac utriusque communicationis et perceptionis, quùm ex naturâ suâ nihil tale significent. Nihil tamen in illis mutatur aut additur praeter usum. Tùm recta ipsorum symbolorum secundum ipsam Domini institutionem administratio, et usurpatio.

Marg. 1 Cor. 11:8(?), 24, 25, 26

English

Hence also a twofold form is considered. The one is of the symbols and external. It is, first, the word of institution and promise: for by it the bread and wine, and the outward rites used in communicating them, become signs of the body and blood of Christ and of the communication and reception of both, though by their own nature they signify nothing of the kind. Yet nothing in them is changed or added except the use. It is, second, the right administration and use of the symbols themselves according to the Lord's own institution.

Thesis XI¶

Latin

Altera forma interna est, consistitque in convenienti arctâque analogia signorum ad rem, cuius sunt signa; secundùm quam analogiam Panis et Vinum dicuntur esse, quod significant, Corpus et Sanguis Christi, non propter aliam unionem quam Sacramentalem. Sacramenta enim non sunt aut denominantur talia à naturâ suâ aut esse suo substantiali, sed ab esse suo significativo, sive à repraesentatione et obsignatione eius, ad quod repraesentandum et obsignandum ordinata sunt à Domino. Panis g. et Vinum, etsi maneant Panis et Vinum secundùm esse suum substantiale et elementare, non sunt tamen Panis et Vinum respectu sui esse Sacramentalis, id est, significativi et obsignativi, sed sunt verum Corpus, verusque Sanguis I. Christi. Non enim instituta sunt et communicantur in alimentum corporis nostri (cui usui naturâ suâ servire solent) sed in alimentum animarum nostrarum, ad quod repraesentandum, obsignandum et exhibendum sunt ex institutione Domini certa signa, σφραγίδες et idonea organa.

Marg. 1 Cor. 10:4

English

The other form is internal, and consists in the fitting and close analogy of the signs to the thing of which they are signs. According to this analogy the bread and wine are said to be what they signify, the body and blood of Christ, on account of no other union than the sacramental one. For sacraments are not, and are not denominated, such from their nature or their substantial being, but from their significative being, that is, from the representation and sealing of that which the Lord has ordained them to represent and seal. The bread and wine, therefore, though they remain bread and wine according to their substantial and elemental being, are nevertheless not bread and wine in respect of their sacramental being, that is, their significative and sealing being, but are the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ. For they are not instituted and communicated for the nourishment of our body (a use they ordinarily serve by their nature), but for the nourishment of our souls, for representing, sealing and exhibiting which they are, by the Lord's institution, sure signs, seals (σφραγίδες) and fit instruments.

Thesis XII¶

Latin

Nihilominus similitudo illa et repraesentatio fundatur in naturali proprietate quae est in signis: sicut enim Panis et Vinum corporaliter â nobis sumpti prae caeteris cibo et potu valent et serviunt nutriendae et sustentandae huic animali vitae: ita etiam Corpus et Sanguis Christi spiritualiter fide percepti ac manducati, valent et serviunt plurimùm spirituali fidelium vitae, in alimentum vitae aeternae. Verumtamen hoc nunquàm Panis et Vinum nobis repraesentarent, multo minùs obsignarent et applicarent absque Domini institutione, quae adeò efficax est, ut simul, et tàm certò Corpus et Sanguinem Christi participemus, si modò os fidei adferamus, ac Panem et Vinum corporis ore sumimus.

Marg. Ioan. 6

English

Nevertheless, that likeness and representation is founded on a natural property that is in the signs. For as bread and wine, taken bodily by us, avail and serve above all other food and drink to nourish and sustain this animal life, so also the body and blood of Christ, received and eaten spiritually by faith, avail and serve most of all for the spiritual life of the faithful, as nourishment to eternal life. Yet bread and wine would never represent this to us, much less seal and apply it, without the Lord's institution. And that institution is so efficacious that we partake of the body and blood of Christ at the same time as, and as certainly as, we take the bread and wine with the mouth of the body, provided only that we bring the mouth of faith.

Thesis XIII¶

Latin

Offertur quidem omnibus huic Sacramento communicantibus, cum ipsâ Panis et vini distributione, ipsa Caro Christi edenda, et Sanguis potandus, vi institutionis Domini, tamen soli verè fideles fiunt illorum participes; illi enim soli habent communionem cum Christo, soli habent spiritum Christi, cuius solius virtute Christi Caro et Sanguis reipsa communicantur. soli denique adferunt os et manum fidei sine quâ illa verè percipi non possunt. Hypocritae vero et qui vera fide destituti sunt, etiamsi Panem et Vinum edant et bibant, tamen non participant Carnem et Sanguinem Christi. Interea tamen quatenus sumunt Panem et Vinum, tanquam Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi, eatenus dici possunt ipsum Christi Corpus et Sanguinem sumere, nempe sacramentaliter. Unde etiam tenentur rei Corporis et Sanguinis Christi, non quia reipsa edant et bibant ipsum Corpus et Sanguinem Christi, verùm quia indigne sumunt illud, quod Corpus et Sanguis sive communio Corporis et Sanguinis Christi dicitur: quo modo passim in Scripturâ dicitur Deus contemni et pollui, quùm res Deo sanctificatae contemnuntur et polluuntur; videlicet propter relationem et communionem illam, quae est inter Deum et res, quas voluit sibi sanctifica‹re›.

Marg. Gal. 2:20 &c. 3 · Rom. 5:5 &c. 8:9 · 1 Ioan. 3:18, 36(?) · 1 Cor. 11:27 · Malach. 1

English

To all who communicate in this sacrament, together with the very distribution of the bread and wine, the very flesh of Christ is indeed offered to be eaten and his blood to be drunk, by force of the Lord's institution; yet only the truly faithful become partakers of them. For they alone have communion with Christ; they alone have the Spirit of Christ, by whose power (virtus) alone the flesh and blood of Christ are communicated in very deed; they alone, lastly, bring the mouth and hand of faith, without which those things cannot truly be received. But hypocrites, and those who are destitute of true faith, although they eat and drink the bread and wine, nevertheless do not partake of the flesh and blood of Christ. Meanwhile, however, insofar as they take the bread and wine as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, so far they can be said to take the very body and blood of Christ, namely sacramentally. Hence also they are held guilty of the body and blood of Christ: not because they eat and drink the very body and blood of Christ in very deed, but because they take unworthily that which is called the body and blood, or the communion of the body and blood, of Christ. In the same way God is everywhere in Scripture said to be despised and polluted when things sanctified to God are despised and polluted, namely on account of that relation and communion which exists between God and the things he has willed to sanctify to himself.

Thesis XIV¶

Latin

Itaque pro duplici respectu huius Sacramenti materiae, externae sc. (quae sunt ipsa symbola) et internae (quae est res signata, sive Christus cum omnibus suis beneficiis) duplex est perceptionis et communicationis modus. Unus symbolorum Visibilis et Corporalis: Alter rei signatae Spiritualis et Invisibilis. Prior omnibus communicantibus tàm piis, quàm impiis competit; utrique enim ore corporis comedunt Panem, et Vinum bibunt; Posterior vero piis et fidelibus tantum: illi enim soli fide Christum recipiunt, et virtute ac efficaciâ Spiritus sancti cum ipso communicationem habent.

English

Accordingly, answering to the twofold respect of the matter of this sacrament, namely the external (which is the symbols themselves) and the internal (which is the thing signified, or Christ with all his benefits), there is a twofold mode of reception and communication: the one, of the symbols, visible and bodily; the other, of the thing signified, spiritual and invisible. The former belongs to all communicants, the godly as much as the ungodly, for both eat the bread and drink the wine with the mouth of the body. The latter belongs to the godly and faithful only, for they alone receive Christ by faith, and have communication with him by the power (virtus) and efficacy of the Holy Spirit.

Thesis XV¶

Latin

Hinc perspicere licet quid de praesentiâ corporis Christi in S. Coenâ statuendum sit, quatenus enim percipitur Christi corpus, eatenus praesens est. Itaque quùm ex illis duobus huic Sacramento communicantium generibus, alii sacramentaliter tantùm, alii sacramentaliter et reipsa percipiant Christi Corpus: Hinc etiam Corpus Christi semper praesens est in Coena sacramentaliter: semper enim in Coena repraesentatur et offertur Christi Corpus, et hoc tantummodò respectu illorum. Horum vero respectu praesens est et sacramentaliter et reipsa: Iis n. non solum repraesentatur et offertur Christi Corpus, sed verè et reipsa exhibetur et communicatur, idq; per fidem et Spiritum Sanctum.

English

From this we may see what is to be held about the presence of the body of Christ in the Holy Supper: for so far as the body of Christ is received, so far it is present. Therefore, since of those two kinds of communicants in this sacrament some receive the body of Christ sacramentally only, and others both sacramentally and in very deed, it follows that the body of Christ is always present in the Supper sacramentally: for in the Supper the body of Christ is always represented and offered, and in respect of the former this is all. But in respect of the latter it is present both sacramentally and in very deed: for to them the body of Christ is not only represented and offered, but truly and in very deed exhibited and communicated, and that through faith and the Holy Spirit.

The thesis most likely to be quoted. Arminius does not deny a real presence; he makes presence follow reception ("so far as it is received, so far it is present"), so that there are two presences for two kinds of communicant. The unbeliever's "sacramental" presence is what grounds their guilt in XIII. The believer's presence "in very deed" is by faith and the Spirit, not in the elements. This is a reprint reading; the quarto is not collated.

Thesis XVI¶

Latin

Neutro g. respectu (ac proinde nullo) requiritur praesentia Corporis Christi in terris. Non primo, quia signa tantum percipiuntur, non autem reipsa Corpus ipsum Christi. Non secundo, quia etiamsi ipsum Corpus reipsa percipiatur, tamen quùm haec perceptio non fiat ore corporis (est enim cibus animi non corporis) sed per fidem et Spiritum Sanctum: sic etiam spiritualiter et hominibus Spiritu Dei ac fide praeditis Corpus Christi praesens est. Ac proinde illâ praesentia, nullâ locorum quantumvis magnâ distantiâ impediri potest.

Marg. Ioan. 6 v. 63, 64

English

In neither respect, therefore (and so in none), is the presence of the body of Christ on earth required. Not in the first, because only the signs are received, and not the very body of Christ in very deed. Not in the second, because, even though the very body is received in very deed, yet since this reception is not made by the mouth of the body (for it is food of the soul, not of the body) but through faith and the Holy Spirit, so too the body of Christ is present spiritually, and to men endowed with the Spirit of God and with faith. And therefore that presence can be hindered by no distance of places, however great.

The thesis names no opponent, but it bears on the Lutheran case: if the body need not be on earth for either kind of presence, the Supper gives no ground for the ubiquity of Christ's body. The spatial distance between heaven and the table is declared irrelevant, not denied.

Thesis XVI [repeated number]¶

Latin

Porrò ex iis quae huc usque dicta sunt facilè constare potest qui sint tùm proprius et primarius Finis, tùm legitimus usus huius Sacramenti. Finis proprius et primarius est, ut communio nostra cum Christo omnibusque suis benificiis, quae morte sua comparavit, magis magisque nobis confirmetur et obsignetur. Huic Primario fini Secundarius adiungitur, ut scil. Christi, ipsiusque beneficiorum illorum recordatione et annuntiatione gratitudinem nostram, fidem et pietatem erga Deum et Christum testemur, mutuamque inter nos charitatem, utpote qui omnes in Christo et cum Christo unum corpus simus; unde etiam hac publicâ actione veluti insigni notâ ab infidelibus secernamur.

Marg. 1 Cor. 10:17 · 1 Cor. 10:17

English

Further, from what has been said so far it can easily be established what are both the proper and primary end and the lawful use of this sacrament. The proper and primary end is that our communion with Christ and all his benefits, which he procured by his death, may be more and more confirmed and sealed to us. To this primary end a secondary one is joined: namely, that by the remembrance and proclamation of Christ and of those benefits of his we may testify our gratitude, faith and piety toward God and Christ, and our mutual love for one another, as being all one body in Christ and with Christ; whence also by this public action, as by a signal mark, we are set apart from unbelievers.

Thesis XVII¶

Latin

Ex hoc fine constat, requiri ut illi qui Sacram Coenam rectè usurpaturi sunt: I. sint Dei foederati, atque adeo per Baptismum in Ecclesiam recepti et agniti pro Christi membris. II. ut per aetatem sese probare possint. III. ut veram fidem ac poenitentiam externis vitae actionibus profiteantur. IV. ut signis visibilibus ritè communicent (quae communia sunt tàm hypocritis, quam veris fidelibus, quoad de infidelitate certò constiterit) Denique requirit verus et legitimis usus, ut qui S. Coenae Pani et Vino communicant, veram habeant fidem, qua Corpus et Sanguinem Christi, ideoque totum Christum cùm beneficiis ipsius recipiant; quod fidelibus proprium est.

Marg. 1 Cor. 11:28

English

From this end it is established that those who are to use the Holy Supper rightly are required: I. to be in covenant with God, and so received into the Church by baptism and recognised as members of Christ; II. to be able, by reason of age, to examine themselves; III. to profess true faith and repentance by the outward actions of their life; IV. to communicate duly in the visible signs (which are common to hypocrites as much as to true believers, until their unbelief has been certainly established). Lastly, the true and lawful use requires that those who communicate in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper have true faith, by which they receive the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the whole Christ with his benefits; and this is proper to the faithful.

FINIS

Transcription notes

Long s (ſ) is silently normalised; u/v and i/j are normalised to modern convention (huius, cuius, eius, ius, adiungitur, Evangelistas, Unde, Unus, sive). & is given as et, and æ/œ/ę as ae/oe/ae, except in "&c." and in the Marg. lines. Printer's accents (à, â, è, ò, ù, quùm, tùm, verùm, relatè, absolutè, verè, certò, adeò, naturâ suâ, quâ, illâ) are retained as printed. Authorem, charitas, seculi, usurpare are the print's spellings.
Nasal-tilde abbreviations expanded (the edition's practice): bibẽda (II), Nõ (V, VIII), necessitatẽ, virtutẽ, quarũ (VII), Sanguinẽ, Panẽ (XII), solũ, Sãctum (XV). Kept as printed: Dõ. for Domini in the preface (a contraction with a point, not a bare nasal tilde); v. for verò (II); g. for igitur (V, XI, XVI); n. for enim (XV); scil., sc., videl.; idq; (XV); I. for Iesum/Iesu (VI, XI), rendered "Jesus".
Thesis II, vespertinõ. The final o carries a tilde-like mark in the print, which no expansion makes sense of (vespertinom is not a word). It is transcribed as printed and read as vespertino. Probably a mis-set accent.
Thesis numbering. The print numbers two consecutive theses XVI (PDF pp. 454 and 455) and then goes on to XVII, so there is no XVIII. Both numbers are left standing. The second is headed "Thesis XVI [repeated number]" here only to keep the headings distinct. The front matter counts 18 theses.
Greek, VIII and XI. Both read σφραγίδες, with an acute on the iota as printed (the lexical form is σφραγῖδες). In VIII the γ is set as a ligature with the preceding letters and the word is heavily inked; XI is clearer and secures the reading. Accent as printed, not normalised.
Scripture references in the text (I). Thesis I carries its references inline in the text, not in the margin. They are kept inline in the Latin in the print's point form (Matth. 26. 28., 1. Cor. 11. vers. 20. et 21.) and given in the English in parentheses.
Marginal references, as printed, not harmonised. The margins carry no sigla in this disputation, and there are no marginal glosses. Doubtful readings:
- IV: Eph. 1:2‹2›. The second numeral is damaged.
- X: 1 Cor. 11:8, printed clearly as "11. 8." and followed by "24. 25. 26." The institution text begins at 11:23. Marked (?), left standing.
- XIII: Gal. 2:20 &c. 3 and Rom. 5:5 &c. 8:9 print "&c." before a chapter number, and "& c[ap]. 3", "& c[ap]. 8:9" are probably meant. Left as printed. 1 Ioan. 3:18, 36: 1 John 3 has 24 verses; John 3:18, 36 (on believing and not believing) would fit. Marked (?).
- XVI bis: 1 Cor. 10:17 is printed twice, on consecutive lines.
*Thesis XIII, sanctifica‹re›.* The last letters are lost in heavy inking at the end of the thesis.
Thesis XIV. After res signata the print has a stray bracket-like sort ("signata],") before the comma; the parenthesis is closed later by ")". The stray sort is not transcribed.
Printed forms not corrected (garbled but harmless): sanguinus (I); methonymicae (I); Dominirecordationem run together (II, divided here); Sanguns (X); benificiis (XVI bis); legitimis for legitimus (XVII); quo ad (V, as two words beside quoad); the indicative sumimus beside adferamus (XII) and confirmatur … testentur (III); illâ praesentia, with an ablative accent on a nominative (XVI). In VII the communicants' rites are numbered "1." with no second item.
Italic. The print italicises the preface, Coenae Dominicae (I), the words of institution (VIII), Transubstantiationem, Consubstantiationem, realem ac substantialem conversionem (VIII), and materia, forma, Finis, Secundarius (V, IX, X, XVI bis). The English italics marking the causes, the two presences and sacramentally are editorial, following Disputation XXXVI. The bold in Thesis III marks the definition.
Terms not in the glossary, rendered here (for review). The sacramental vocabulary follows Disputation LVI note 13: signum "sign"; obsignare, obsignatio "to seal", "sealing"; res signata "the thing signified"; symbola "symbols"; foederati "those in covenant with God"; materia / forma "matter" / "form"; usus "use"; analogia "analogy"; perceptio "reception"; efficacia "efficacy"; charitas "love". New here: σφραγίδες "seals" (with the Greek kept); organa "instruments"; exhibere, exhibitio "to exhibit", "exhibition"; communio "communion" and communicatio "communication", kept distinct; communicare "to communicate (in)"; praesentia "presence"; sacramentaliter "sacramentally"; reipsa "in very deed"; unio sacramentalis "sacramental union"; esse significativum / substantiale "significative / substantial being"; recordatio "remembrance"; annuntiatio "proclamation"; vis "force" (IV, XIII: "force and efficacy", "by force of the Lord's institution"); virtus "virtue" (VII) and "power" (XIII, XIV, of the Spirit), with (virtus) marked per the glossary, ruled 2026-09-17; pii "the godly" (against the glossary impii "the ungodly"); hypocritae "hypocrites"; rei "guilty of" (after 1 Cor. 11:27 AV); poenitentia "repentance"; convivium "banquet".
Running heads and pages. Printed pp. 419–428 correspond to PDF pp. 447–456 (offset 28). The half-title (Disputatio XLIV) heads PDF p. 447; PDF p. 446 ends Disputation XLIII (26 theses, on baptism against the Anabaptists) with FINIS. The running head on printed p. 427 reads Disputatio XLIII, a compositor's error for XLIV; the head on p. 428 reads Dominic. Several page numbers are damaged. The row's range needs one correction: FINIS falls near the top of PDF p. 456, and Disputation XLV, De Missa, begins on the same page (not at the top of p. 457), under Trelcatius (respondent Isaacus Iunius Hagiensis, 4 Dec. 1606). Signatures Ee iiij and Ee v are visible.
Condition. There is no manuscript underlining or annotation. There is heavy inking, show-through and speckle from the 1-bit JBIG2 digitisation. ⚠ JBIG2 symbol substitution can swap similar glyphs, and the marginal numerals and the date numeral are where that risk bites.
Theses are numbered I–XVII with XVI repeated. No thesis is lost. No second witness is required for publication, though the date (witness_note), item 5 and item 7 would benefit from one.