A Candid Inquiry into the Controversies among Evangelicals · §35

Coena Domini: How Lutherans themselves retreat from the letter

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

Yet the Lutherans deny (1) that the Bread is itself Christ's Body. Which is what the literal sense sounds. (2) likewise that This refers to the Bread, to what Christ was showing. Which is what the letter wants. (3) for them the word is becomes is in, is under, is contained, and so on. Against the letter. (4) they take Body as invisible and illocal. Again against the letter's will. (5) they shift the subject into the place of the predicate, for example My Body is in or under this bread, and so on. (6) they confess the way of speaking is synecdochic, by synecdoche of the contained or of the whole, and so on. Yet a figure which (they say) loses the name of figure; others call it an unusual locution, and so on. (7) they have parted far from one another in rendering these words: some take this of the bread; others complexly of bread and Body; others adverbially, Behold my Body; others actively, this whole action, and so on.

Latin

Licet Lutherani negent 1. Panem esse ipsum Corpus Christi, quod sonat sensus literalis. 2. Itidem negent Hoc referri ad Panem, ad id quod Christus monstrabat, quod vult litera. 3. To Est, sit illis inest, subest, continetur, &c. contra literam. 4. Corpus intelligant invisibile, illocale, invita rursum litera. 5. Mutent subjectum in locum praedicati, v. gr. Corpus meum est in vel sub hoc pane, &c. 6. Fateantur locutionem esse Synecdochicam, per Synecdochen contenti, vel totius, &c. sed quae amittat (ajunt) nomen figurae; alii inusitatam locutionem esse, &c. 7. Plurimum a se invicem discesserint in reddendis his verbis; dum alii hoc de pane; alii complexe de pane & Corpore; alii adverbialiter, Ecce Corpus meum; alii active, haec tota actio, &c.

About this text

Samuel Strimesius — Prefatio through Controversiae Post Lutherum Controv. III-XIII + XV Tolerantia, Hexades Annotationum Prooemium and Annotatio I through Decem Theses / Francus plus Annotatio II §.I-§.VI and Annotatio III §.I–§.VII (through Cassellanum 1661) from Ingenua in Controversias Evangelicorum (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1708). Honest partial; Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio III §.VIII+ fruits / §.IX+, Hexades theses body, deeper Controversiae / Part II remain.

English follows the locked 1708 Francofurti ad Viadrum Latin of Prefatio §I–II, Crimina defenses through III, Part I Protheoria through Controversiae Obices/Historia/Varii gradus, Formula Discord/Disparitas, Ulterius confirmatur / Classes / Formula protest / triplex differentia, Coena Domini Controversiae Priores through Precariae Hypotheses (Controv. print pp. 34–40), Controversiae Post Lutherum Natae Controv. III–XV tip (providence through De Tolerantia mutua; Controv. print pp. 40–78), Hexades Annotationum Prooemium H.I–§.III (Hexades print pp. 1–4 / PDF ~182–185), and Annotatio I De Augustana Confessione §.I–§.VIII tip (Hexades print pp. 5–24+ / PDF ~186–205+), reconstructed from Google Books PDF page images (ONB copy, id 3epYAAAAcAAJ) with pdftotext as check. No modern English was copied. Sister Halle digitization of Ingenua in Arminianismum (DOI 10.25673/65287) remains Anubis-blocked — skipped; Controversias only. Prefatio silence reasons, Annotatio I §.IX+, Hexades theses body beyond §.VIII, and remainder of Controversiae / folio remain.

Witnesses

This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.