CHAPTER XVII. THE LORD’S SUPPER AND ITS ADVANTAGES.

After God has once received us into his family, and not only so as to admit us among his servants, but to number us with his children,—in order to fulfil the part of a most excellent father, solicitous for his offspring, he also undertakes to sustain and nourish us as long as we live; and not content with this, he has been pleased to give us a pledge, as a further assurance of this never-ceasing liberality. For this purpose, therefore, by the hand of his only begotten Son, he has favoured his Church with another sacrament, a spiritual banquet, in which Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our souls for a true and blessed immortality. Now, as the knowledge of so great a mystery is highly necessary, and on account of its importance, requires an accurate explication; and, on the other hand, as Satan, in order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago endeavoured, first by mists, and afterwards by thicker shades, to obscure its lustre, and then raised disputes and contentions to alienate the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our time also has attempted the same artifice; after having exhibited a summary of what relates to the subject, adapted to the capacity of the unlearned, I will disentangle it from those sophistries with which Satan has been labouring to deceive the world. In the first place, the signs are bread and wine, which represent to us the invisible nourishment which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as in baptism God regenerates us, incorporates us into the society of his Church, and makes us his children by adoption, so we have said, that he acts towards us the part of a provident father of a family, in constantly supplying us with food, to sustain and preserve us in that life to which he has begotten us by his word. Now, the only food of our souls is Christ; and to him, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us, that being refreshed by a participation of him, we may gain fresh vigour from day to day, till we arrive at the heavenly immortality. And because this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits a figure and image of it in visible signs, peculiarly adapted to our feeble capacity; and, as it were, by giving tokens and pledges, renders it equally as certain to us as if we beheld it with our eyes; for the dullest minds understand this very familiar similitude, that our souls are nourished by Christ, just as the life of the body is supported by bread and wine. We see, then, for what end this mystical benediction is designed; namely, to assure us that the body of the Lord was once offered as a sacrifice for us, so that we may now feed upon it, and, feeding on it, may experience within us the efficacy of that one sacrifice; and that his blood was once shed for us, so that it is our perpetual drink. And this is the import of the words of the promise annexed to it: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you.” The body, therefore, which was once offered for our salvation, we are commanded to take and eat; that seeing ourselves made partakers of it, we may certainly conclude, that the virtue of that life-giving death will be efficacious within us. Hence, also, he calls the cup “the new testament,” or rather covenant, in his blood. [1238] For the covenant which he once ratified with his blood, he in some measure renews, or rather continues, as far as relates to the confirmation of our faith, whenever he presents us that sacred blood to drink.

II. From this sacrament pious souls may derive the benefit of considerable satisfaction and confidence; because it affords us a testimony that we are incorporated into one body with Christ, so that whatever is his, we are at liberty to call ours. The consequence of this is, that we venture to assure ourselves of our interest in eternal life, of which he is the heir, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has already entered, can no more be lost by us than by him; and, on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned by our sins, from the guilt of which he absolved us, when he wished them to be imputed to himself, as if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, in his infinite goodness, he has made with us. Submitting to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches; assuming our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; accepting our mortality, he has conferred on us his immortality; taking on himself the load of iniquity with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness; descending to the earth, he has prepared a way for our ascending to heaven; becoming with us the Son of man, he has made us, with himself, the sons of God.

III. Of all these things we have such a complete attestation in this sacrament, that we may confidently consider them as truly exhibited to us, as if Christ himself were presented to our eyes, and touched by our hands. For there can be no falsehood or illusion in this word, “Take, eat, drink; this is my body which is given for you; this is my blood which is shed for the remission of sins.” By commanding us to take, he signifies that he is ours; by commanding us to eat and drink, he signifies that he is become one substance with us. In saying that his body is given for us, and his blood shed for us, he shows that both are not so much his as ours, because he assumed and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. And it ought to be carefully observed, that the principal and almost entire energy of the sacrament lies in these words, “which is given for you;” “which is shed for you;” for otherwise it would avail us but little, that the body and blood of the Lord are distributed to us now, if they had not been once delivered for our redemption and salvation. Therefore they are represented to us by bread and wine, to teach us that they are not only ours, but are destined for the support of our spiritual life. This is what we have already suggested—that by the corporeal objects which are presented in the sacrament, we are conducted, by a kind of analogy, to those which are spiritual. So, when bread is given to us as a symbol of the body of Christ, we ought immediately to conceive of this comparison, that, as bread nourishes, sustains, and preserves the life of the body, so the body of Christ is the only food to animate and support the life of the soul. When we see wine presented as a symbol of his blood, we ought to think of the uses of wine to the human body, that we may contemplate the same advantages conferred upon us in a spiritual manner by the blood of Christ; which are these—that it nourishes, refreshes, strengthens, and exhilarates. For if we duly consider the benefits resulting to us from the oblation of his sacred body, and the effusion of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, according to this analogy, are most justly attributed to those symbols, as administered to us in the Lord’s supper.

IV. The principal object of the sacrament, therefore, is not to present us the body of Christ, simply, and without any ulterior consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise, where he declares that his “flesh is meat indeed, and” his “blood drink indeed,” by which we are nourished to eternal life; where he affirms that he is “the bread of life,” and that “he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever;” [1239] to seal and confirm that promise, I say; and, in order to do this, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where the promise has been fully verified, and entirely accomplished. For we never rightly and advantageously feed on Christ, except as crucified, and when we have a lively apprehension of the efficacy of his death. And, indeed, when Christ called himself “the bread of life,” he did not use that appellation on account of the sacrament, as some persons erroneously imagine, but because he had been given to us as such by the Father, and showed himself to be such, when, becoming a partaker of our human mortality, he made us partakers of his Divine immortality; when, offering himself a sacrifice, he sustained our curse, to fill us with his blessing; when, by his death, he destroyed and swallowed up death; when, in his resurrection, this corruptible flesh of ours, which he had assumed, was raised up by him, in a state of incorruption and glory.

V. It remains for all this to be applied to us; which is done in the first place by the gospel, but in a more illustrious manner by the sacred supper, in which Christ offers himself to us with all his benefits, and we receive him by faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not first constitute Christ the bread of life; but, by recalling to our remembrance that he has been made the bread of life, upon which we may constantly feed, and by giving us a taste and relish for that bread, it causes us to experience the support which it is adapted to afford. For it assures us, in the first place, that whatever Christ has done or suffered, was for the purpose of giving life to us; and, in the next place, that this life will never end. For as Christ would never have been the bread of life to us, if he had not been born, and died, and risen again for us, so now he would by no means continue so, if the efficacy and benefit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, were not permanent and immortal. All this Christ has beautifully expressed in these words: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world;” [1240] in which he clearly signifies, that his body would be as bread to us, for the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be exposed to death for our salvation; and that it is given to us to feed upon it, when he makes us partakers of it by faith. He gave it once, therefore, to be made bread, when he surrendered it to be crucified for the redemption of the world; he gives it daily, when, by the word of the gospel, he presents it to us, that we may partake of it as crucified; when he confirms that presentation by the sacred mystery of the supper; when he accomplishes within that which he signifies without. Here it behoves us to guard against two errors; that, on the one hand, we may not, by undervaluing the signs, disjoin them from the mysteries with which they are connected; nor, on the other hand, by extolling them beyond measure, obscure the glory of the mysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life, by which believers are nourished to eternal salvation, there is no man, not entirely destitute of religion, who hesitates to acknowledge; but all are not equally agreed respecting the manner of partaking of him. For there are some who define in a word, that to eat the flesh of Christ, and to drink his blood, is no other than to believe in Christ himself. But I conceive that, in that remarkable discourse, in which Christ recommends us to feed upon his body, he intended to teach us something more striking and sublime; namely, that we are quickened by a real participation of him, which he designates by the terms of eating and drinking, that no person might suppose the life which we receive from him to consist in simple knowledge. For as it is not seeing, but eating bread, that administers nourishment to the body, so it is necessary for the soul to have a true and complete participation of Christ, that by his power it may be quickened to spiritual life. At the same time, we confess that there is no other eating than by faith, as it is impossible to imagine any other; but the difference between me and the persons whose sentiment I am opposing, is this; they consider eating to be the very same as believing; I say, that in believing we eat the flesh of Christ, because he is actually made ours by faith, and that this eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to express it more plainly, they consider the eating to be faith itself; but I apprehend it to be rather a consequence of faith. The difference is small in words, but in the thing itself it is considerable. For though the apostle teaches that “Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith,” [1241] yet no one will explain this inhabitation to be faith itself. Every one must perceive that the apostle intended to express a peculiar advantage arising from faith, of which the residence of Christ in the hearts of believers is one of the effects. In the same manner, when the Lord called himself “the bread of life,” [1242] he intended not only to teach that salvation is laid up for us in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also that, by our real participation of him, his life is transferred to us, and becomes ours; just as bread, when it is taken for food, communicates vigour to the body.

VI. When Augustine, whom they bring forward as their advocate, said that we eat the body of Christ by believing in him, it was with no other meaning than to show that this eating is not of a corporeal nature, but solely by faith. This I admit; but at the same time I add, that we embrace Christ by faith, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting himself with us, to become our head, and to make us his members. I do not altogether disapprove, however, such a mode of expression, but if they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ, I deny this to be a complete explanation. Otherwise, I see that Augustine has frequently used this phrase; as when he says, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye have no life in you; [1243] this is a figure which enjoins a participation of the sufferings of our Lord, and a sweet and useful recollection in the memory, that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us:” and again, when he says, “That the three thousand, who were converted by the preaching of Peter, [1244] drank the blood of Christ by believing in him, which they had shed in persecuting him.” But in many other passages he highly celebrates that beneficial consequence of faith, and states our souls to be as much refreshed by the communion of the body of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread which we eat. And the very same idea is conveyed by Chrysostom, when he says, “That Christ makes us his body, not only by faith, but also in reality.” For he does not mean that this benefit is obtained any otherwise than by faith; he only intends to preclude a supposition from being entertained by any one, that this faith is nothing more than a speculative apprehension. I say nothing at present of those who maintain the Lord’s supper to be a mere mark of external profession, because I think I have sufficiently refuted their error, when treating of the sacraments in general. Only let it be observed, that when Christ says, “This cup is the new testament, or covenant, in my blood,” [1245] this is the expression of a promise calculated for the confirmation of faith; whence it follows, that unless we direct our views to God, and embrace what he offers us, we never properly celebrate the sacred supper.

VII. Nor am I satisfied with those persons, who, after having acknowledged that we have some communion with Christ, when they mean to describe it, represent us merely as partakers of his Spirit, but make no mention of his flesh and blood; as though there were no meaning in these and other similar expressions: “That his flesh is meat indeed; that his blood is drink indeed; that except we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in us.” Wherefore, if it be evident that the full communion of Christ goes beyond their too confined description of it, I will endeavour to state, in few words, how far it extends, before I speak of the contrary error of carrying it to excess. For I shall have a longer controversy with the hyperbolical doctors, who, while in their folly they imagine an absurd and extravagant way of eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking his blood, deprive him of his real body, and metamorphose him into a mere phantom; if, however, it be possible, in any words, to unfold so great a mystery, which I find myself incapable of properly comprehending, even in my mind; and this I am ready to acknowledge, that no person may measure the sublimity of the subject by my inadequate representation of it. On the contrary, I exhort my readers not to confine their thoughts within such narrow and insufficient limits, but to endeavour to rise much higher than I am able to conduct them; for as to myself, whenever I handle this subject, after having endeavoured to say every thing, I am conscious of having said but very little, in comparison of its excellence. And though the conceptions of the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue, yet, with the magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed. Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of that mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the tongue to express. I will nevertheless state the substance of my opinion, which, as I have no doubt of its truth, I trust will also be received with approbation by godly minds.

VIII. In the first place, we learn from the Scriptures, that Christ was from the beginning that life-giving Word of the Father, the fountain and origin of life, from which all things have ever derived their existence. Therefore John in one place calls him “The Word of life,” and in another says, that “in him was life;” [1246] signifying, that even then he diffused his energy over all the creatures, and endued them with life and breath. Yet the same apostle immediately adds, that “the life was manifested” then, and not before, when the Son of God, by assuming our flesh, rendered himself visible to the eyes, and palpable to the hands of men. For though he diffused his influence over all the creatures before that period, yet, because man was alienated from God by sin, had lost the participation of life, and saw nothing on every side but impending death, it was necessary to his recovery of any hope of immortality, that he should be received into the communion of that word. For what slender hopes shall we form, if we hear that the Word of God contains in himself all the plenitude of life, while we are at an infinite distance from him, and, withersoever we turn our eyes, see nothing but death presenting itself on every side? But since he who is the fountain of life has taken up his residence in our flesh, he remains no longer concealed at a distance from us, but openly exhibits himself to our participation. He also makes the very flesh in which he resides the means of giving life to us, that, by a participation of it, we may be nourished to immortality. “I am the living bread,” says he, “which came down from heaven. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” [1247] In these words, he shows, not only that he is life, as he is the eternal Word who descended from heaven to us, but that in descending he imparted that power to the flesh which he assumed, in order that it might communicate life to us. Hence follow these declarations: “That his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is drink indeed;” [1248] meat and drink by which believers are nourished to eternal life. Here, then, we enjoy peculiar consolation, that we find life in our own flesh. For in this manner we not only have an easy access to it, but it freely discovers and offers itself to our acceptance; we have only to open our hearts to its reception, and we shall obtain it.

IX. Now, though the power of giving life to us is not an essential attribute of the body of Christ, which, in its original condition, was subject to mortality, and now lives by an immortality not its own, yet it is justly represented as the source of life, because it is endued with a plenitude of life to communicate to us. In this I agree with Cyril, in understanding that declaration of Christ, “As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” [1249] For in this passage, he is not speaking of the attributes which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of the gifts with which he was adorned in the flesh in which he appeared; therefore he showed that the fulness of life dwelt in his humanity, that whoever partook of his flesh and blood might, at the same time, enjoy a participation of life. For, as the water of a fountain is sometimes drunk, sometimes drawn, and sometimes conveyed in furrows for the irrigation of lands, yet the fountain does not derive such an abundance for so many uses from itself, but from the spring which is perpetually flowing to furnish it with fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which receives the life flowing from the Divinity, and conveys it to us. Now, who does not see that a participation of the body and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to heavenly life? This is implied in those passages of the apostle, that the Church is the body of Christ, and his fulness; [1250] that he is “the head, from whom the whole body, joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the body;” [1251] that our bodies are “the members of Christ;” [1252] things which we know can no otherwise be effected than by his entire union both of body and spirit with us. But that most intimate fellowship, by which we are united with his flesh, the apostle has illustrated in a still more striking representation, when he says, “We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” [1253] At length, to declare the subject to be above all description, he concludes his discourse by exclaiming, “This is a great mystery.” [1254] It would be extreme stupidity, therefore, to acknowledge no communion of believers with the body and blood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great, that he would rather admire than express it.

X. We conclude, that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ, just as our corporeal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine. For otherwise there would be no suitableness in the analogy of the sign, if our souls did not find their food in Christ; which cannot be the case unless Christ truly becomes one with us, and refreshes us by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Though it appears incredible for the flesh of Christ, from such an immense local distance, to reach us, so as to become our food, we should remember how much the secret power of the Holy Spirit transcends all our senses, and what folly it is to apply any measure of ours to his immensity. Let our faith receive, therefore, what our understanding is not able to comprehend, that the Spirit really unites things which are separated by local distance. Now, that holy participation of his flesh and blood, by which Christ communicates his life to us, just as if he actually penetrated every part of our frame, in the sacred supper he also testifies and seals; and that not by the exhibition of a vain or ineffectual sign, but by the exertion of the energy of his Spirit, by which he accomplishes that which he promises. And the thing signified he exhibits and offers to all who come to that spiritual banquet; though it is advantageously enjoyed by believers alone, who receive such great goodness with true faith and gratitude of mind. For which reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” [1255] Nor is there any cause to object, that it is a figurative expression, by which the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. I grant, indeed, that the breaking of the bread is symbolical, and not the substance itself: yet, this being admitted, from the exhibition of the symbol we may justly infer the exhibition of the substance; for, unless any one would call God a deceiver, he can never presume to affirm that he sets before us an empty sign. Therefore, if, by the breaking of the bread, the Lord truly represents the participation of his body, it ought not to be doubted that he truly presents and communicates it. And it must always be a rule with believers, whenever they see the signs instituted by the Lord, to assure and persuade themselves that they are also accompanied with the truth of the thing signified. For to what end would the Lord deliver into our hands the symbol of his body, except to assure us of a real participation of it? If it be true that the visible sign is given to us to seal the donation of the invisible substance, we ought to entertain a confident assurance, that in receiving the symbol of his body, we at the same time truly receive the body itself.

XI. In harmony, therefore, with the doctrine which has always been received in the Church, and which is maintained in the present day by all who hold right sentiments, I say, that the sacred mystery of the supper consists of two parts: the corporeal signs, which, being placed before our eyes, represent to us invisible things in a manner adapted to the weakness of our capacities; and the spiritual truth, which is at the same time typified and exhibited by those symbols. When I intend to give a familiar view of this truth, I am accustomed to state three particulars which it includes: the signification; the matter, or substance, which depends on the signification; and the virtue, or effect, which follows from both. The signification consists in the promises which are interwoven with the sign. What I call the matter or substance, is Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I mean redemption, righteousness, sanctification, eternal life, and all the other benefits which Christ confers upon us. Now, though all these things are connected with faith, yet I leave no room for this cavil; as though, when I say that Christ is received by faith, I intended that he is received merely in the understanding and imagination; for the promises present him to us, not that we may rest in mere contemplation and simple knowledge, but that we may enjoy a real participation of him. And, in fact, I see not how any man can attain a solid confidence that he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, unless he first has a real communion with Christ himself; for those blessings would never be imparted to us, if Christ did not first make himself ours. I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the supper, under the symbols of bread and wine, Christ is truly exhibited to us, even his body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to procure our justification. And the design of this exhibition is, first, that we may be united into one body with him, and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we may experience his power in the communication of all blessings.

XII. I now proceed to the hyperbolical additions which superstition has made to this sacrament. For here Satan has exerted amazing subtlety to withdraw the minds of men from heaven, and involve them in a preposterous error, by persuading them that Christ is attached to the element of bread. In the first place, we must be careful not to dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the ingenuity of the Romanists has invented; as if the body of Christ were exhibited, by a local presence, to be felt by the hand, bruised by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat. For this was the form of recantation which Pope Nicolas directed to Berengarius as a declaration of his repentance; the language of which is so monstrous, that the scholiast exclaims, that there is danger, unless the readers be very prudent and cautious, of their imbibing from it a worse heresy than that of Berengarius; and Peter Lombard, though he takes great pains to defend it from the charge of absurdity, yet rather inclines to a different opinion. For, as we have not the least doubt that Christ’s body is finite, according to the invariable condition of a human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, till it shall return to judgment, so we esteem it utterly unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it to be present every where. Nor is there any need of this, in order to our enjoying the participation of it; since the Lord by his Spirit gives us the privilege of being united with himself in body, soul, and spirit. The bond of this union, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, by whom we are conjoined, and who is, as it were, the channel by which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us. For, if we behold the sun darting his rays and transmitting his substance, as it were, in them, to generate, nourish, and mature the roots of the earth, why should the irradiation of the Spirit of Christ be less effectual to convey to us the communication of his body and blood? Wherefore, the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation of Christ, attributes all the power of it to the Spirit. One passage shall suffice instead of many. In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul represents Christ as dwelling in us no otherwise than by his Spirit. [1256] By this representation, the apostle does not destroy that communion of the body and blood of Christ of which we are now treating, but teaches that it is solely owing to the agency of the Spirit that we possess Christ with all his benefits, and have him dwelling within us.

XIII. Deterred by a horror of such barbarous impiety, the schoolmen have expressed themselves in more modest language, yet they only trifle with equal fallacy and greater subtlety. They admit that Christ is not contained in the bread and wine in a local or corporeal manner; but they afterwards invent a manner which they neither understand themselves nor can explain to others; which, however, amounts to this, that Christ is to be sought, as they express it, in the form of bread. When they say that the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ, do they not attach his substance to the whiteness, which they pretend is all that remains of the bread? But, they say, he is so contained in the sacrament, that he remains in heaven, and we maintain no other presence than that of habitude. But whatever words they employ to gloss over their notions, they all terminate in this, that, by the consecration, that which was before bread becomes Christ, so that the substance of Christ is concealed under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed to express in plain terms; for Lombard says, “That the body of Christ, which is visible in itself, is hidden and concealed, after the consecration, under the form of bread.” Thus the figure of the bread is nothing but a veil, which prevents the flesh from being seen. Nor is there any need of many conjectures, to discover what snares they intended to lay in these words, which the thing itself plainly evinces. For it is evident in what profound superstition not only the people in general, but even the principal men, have now for several ages been involved, and are involved, at the present day, in the Papal churches. True faith, which is the sole medium of our union and communion with Christ, being an object of little solicitude to them, provided they have that carnal presence which they have fabricated without any authority from the Divine word, they consider him as sufficiently present with them. The consequence of this ingenious subtlety, therefore, we find to be this, that bread has been taken for God.

XIV. Hence proceeded that pretended transubstantiation, for which they now contend with more earnestness than for all the other articles of their faith. For the first inventors of the local presence were unable to explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of the bread, without being immediately embarrassed by many absurdities. Therefore they found it necessary to have recourse to this fiction, that the bread is transmuted into the body of Christ; not that his body is properly made of the bread, but that Christ annihilates the substance of the bread, and conceals himself under its form. It is astonishing that they could fall into such ignorance, and even stupidity, as to promulgate such a monstrous notion, in direct opposition to the Scripture and to the doctrine of the primitive Church. I confess, indeed, that some of the ancient writers sometimes used the word conversion, not with a view to destroy the substance of the external signs, but to signify that the bread dedicated to that sacrament is unlike common bread, and different from what it was before. But they all constantly and expressly declare, that the sacred supper consists of two parts, earthly and heavenly; and the earthly part they explain, without the least hesitation, to be bread and wine. Whatever the Romanists may pretend, it is very clear that the authority of the ancients, which they frequently presume to oppose to the plain word of God, affords them no assistance in the support of this dogma; and, indeed, it is comparatively but of recent invention, for it was not only unknown to those better times, when the doctrine of religion still flourished in its purity, but even when that purity had already been much corrupted. There is not one of the ancient writers who does not acknowledge in express terms that the consecrated symbols of the supper are bread and wine; though, as we have observed, they sometimes distinguish them with various titles, to celebrate the dignity of the mystery. For when they say, that a secret conversion takes place in the consecration, so that they are something different from bread and wine, I have already stated their meaning to be, not that the bread and wine are annihilated, but that they are to be considered in a different light from common aliments, which are merely designed for the nourishment of the body; because, in those elements, we are presented with the spiritual meat and drink of the soul. In this we also coincide. But, say our opponents, if there be a conversion, one thing must be changed into another. If they mean that something is made what it was not before, I agree with them. If they wish to apply this to their absurd notion, let them tell me what change they think takes place in baptism. For in that also the fathers state a wonderful conversion, when they say, that from the corruptible element proceeds a spiritual ablution of the soul, yet not one of them denies that it retains the substance of water. But there is no such declaration, they say, respecting baptism as there is respecting the supper: “This is my body.” As though the question related to those words, which have a meaning obvious enough, and not rather to the conversion or change spoken of, which ought to signify no more in the supper than in baptism. Let them cease their verbal subtleties, therefore, which only betray their own absurdity. Indeed, there would be no consistency in the signification, if the external sign were not a living image of the truth which is represented in it. By the external sign, Christ intended to declare that his flesh is meat. If he were to set before us a mere spectre of bread, and not real bread, where would be the analogy or similitude, which ought to lead us from the visible emblem to the invisible substance? For, to preserve the correspondence complete, the signification would extend no further than that we should be fed with an appearance of the flesh of Christ. As in baptism, if there were nothing but an appearance of water to deceive our eyes, we should have no certain pledge of our ablution; and such an illusive representation we should find a source of painful uncertainty. The nature of the sacrament, therefore, is subverted, unless the earthly sign correspond in its signification to the heavenly substance; and, consequently, we lose the truth of this mystery, unless the true body of Christ be represented by real bread. I repeat it again; since the sacred supper is nothing but a visible attestation of the promise, that Christ is “the bread of life which cometh down from heaven,” [1257] it requires the use of visible and material bread to represent that which is spiritual; unless we are determined that the means which God kindly affords to support our weakness shall be altogether unavailing to us. With what reason could Paul conclude that “we, being many, are one bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread,” [1258] if there were nothing but a mere phantom of bread, and not the true and real substance of it?

XV. They would never have been so shamefully deluded by the fallacies of Satan, if they had not been previously fascinated with this error—that the body of Christ contained in the bread was received in a corporeal manner into the mouth, and actually swallowed. The cause of such a stupid notion was, that they considered the consecration as a kind of magical incantation. But they were unacquainted with this principle, that the bread is a sacrament only to those to whom the word is addressed; as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but on the annexation of the promise, begins to be to us that which it was not before. This will be further elucidated by the example of a similar sacrament. The water which flowed from the rock in the wilderness, was to the fathers a token and sign of the same thing which is represented to us by the wine in the sacred supper; for Paul says, “They did drink the same spiritual drink.” [1259] But the same water served also for their flocks and herds. Hence it is easily inferred, that when earthly elements are applied to a spiritual use, no other change takes place in them than with regard to men, to whom they become seals of the promises. Besides, since the design of God is, as I have often repeated, by suitable vehicles to elevate us to himself, this object is impiously frustrated by the obstinacy of those who invite us to Christ indeed, but invisibly concealed under the form of bread. It is not possible for the human mind to overcome the immensity of local distance, and to penetrate to Christ in the highest heavens. What nature denied them, they attempted to correct by a remedy yet more pernicious, that while remaining on the earth, they might attain a proximity to Christ without any need of ascending to heaven. This is all the necessity which constrained them to metamorphose the body of Christ. In the time of Bernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still transubstantiation was yet unknown; and in all preceding ages it was a common similitude, in the mouths of all, that in this sacrament the body and blood of Christ were spiritually united with the bread and wine. They argue respecting the terms, in their own apprehension, with great acuteness, but without adducing any thing applicable to the present subject. The rod of Moses, they say, though it took the form of a serpent, still retained its original name, and was called a rod. [1260] So they think it equally probable, that though the bread be changed into another substance, yet it may by a catachresis, without any violation of propriety, be denominated according to its visible appearance. But what similitude or connection can they discover between that illustrious miracle and their fictitious illusion, which no eye on earth witnesses? The magicians had practised their sorceries, so that the Egyptians believed them to possess a Divine power to effect changes in the creatures above the order of nature. Moses confronted them, and defeating all their enchantments, showed the invincible power of God to be on his side; because his one rod swallowed up all the rest. But that being a transmutation visible to the eye, makes nothing to the present argument, as we have already observed; and the rod soon after visibly returned to its original form. Moreover, it is not known whether that was in reality a temporary transmutation of substance or not. The allusion to the rods of the magicians deserves also to be observed; for Moses says, that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods:” he would not call them serpents, lest he might appear to imply a transmutation which did not exist; for those impostors had done nothing but dazzle the eyes of the spectators. What resemblance has this to the following and other similar expressions: “The bread which we break;” [1261] “As often as ye eat this bread;” [1262] “They continued in breaking of bread?” [1263] It is certain that their eyes were only deceived by the incantations of the magicians. There is greater uncertainty with respect to Moses, by whose hand it was no more difficult for God to make a rod into a serpent, and afterwards to make the serpent into a rod again, than to invest angels with material bodies, and soon after to disembody them again. If the nature of this sacrament were the same, or bore any affinity to the case we have mentioned, our opponents would have some colour for their solution. We must, therefore, consider it as a fixed principle, that the flesh of Christ is not truly promised to us for food in the sacred supper, unless the true substance of the external symbol corresponds to it. And as one error gives birth to another, a passage of Jeremiah is so stupidly perverted, in order to prove transubstantiation, that I am ashamed to recite it. The prophet complains that wood was put into his bread; [1264] signifying that his enemies by their cruelty had taken away all the relish of his food; as David in a similar figure utters the following complaint: “They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” [1265] These disputants explain it as an allegory, that the body of Christ was affixed to the wood of the cross; and this, they say, was the opinion of some of the fathers. I reply, we ought rather to pardon their ignorance, and bury their disgrace in oblivion, than to add the effrontery of constraining them continually to combat the genuine meaning of the prophet.

XVI. Others, who perceive it to be impossible to destroy the analogy of the sign and the thing signified, without subverting the truth of the mystery, acknowledge that the bread in the sacred supper is the true substance of that earthly and corruptible element, and undergoes no change in itself; but they maintain that it has the body of Christ included under it. If they explained their meaning to be, that when the bread is presented in the sacrament, it is attended with an exhibition of the body of Christ, because the truth represented is inseparable from its sign, I should make little objection; but as, by placing the body itself in the bread, they attribute ubiquity to it, which is incompatible with its nature, and by stating it to be under the bread, represent it as lying concealed in it; it is necessary to unmask such subtleties: not that it is my intention to enter on a professed examination of the whole of this subject at present; I shall only lay the foundations of the discussion, which will follow in its proper place. They maintain the body of Christ, therefore, to be invisible and infinite, that it may be concealed under the bread; because they suppose it to be impossible for them to partake of him, any otherwise than by his descending into the bread; but they know nothing of that descent of which we have spoken, by which he elevates us to himself. They bring forward every plausible pretext that they can; but when they have said all, it is evident that they are contending for a local presence of Christ. And what is the reason of it? It is because they cannot conceive of any other participation of his flesh and blood, except what would consist in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross enclosure.

XVII. And to defend with obstinacy the error which they have once embraced, some of them hesitate not to affirm that the body of Christ never had any other dimensions than the whole extent of heaven and earth. His birth as an infant, his growth to maturity, his extension on the cross, his incarceration in the sepulchre,—all this, they say, took place in consequence of a kind of dispensation, that he might as a man accomplish every thing necessary to our salvation. His appearance in the same corporeal form after his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, his subsequent appearances to Stephen and to Paul,—all this also resulted from a similar dispensation, that he might manifest himself to the view of man as appointed King in heaven. Now, what is this but to raise Marcion from the dead? For if such were the condition of Christ’s body, every one must perceive it to have been a mere phantom or visionary form, without any real substance. Some plead, with a little more subtlety, that the body of Christ, which is given in the sacrament, is glorious and immortal, and that therefore it involves no absurdity, if it be contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place, or without any form. But I ask what kind of body did Jesus Christ give to his disciples, the night before he suffered? Do not the words imply, that he gave them the same mortal body which was just about to be betrayed? They reply, that he had already manifested his glory in the eyes of three of his disciples, on the mount. That is true; but his design was, in that splendour, to give them a transient glimpse of his immortality. They will not find there a twofold body, but the very same which Christ was accustomed to carry about with him, adorned with unusual glory, from which it speedily returned to its natural condition. When he distributed his body at the institution of the sacred supper, the hour was approaching, in which, “stricken and smitten of God,” he was to lie down like a leper “without form or comeliness:” [1266] he was then far from intending to display the glory of his resurrection. What a door does this open to the error of Marcion, if the body of Christ appeared in one place mortal and mean, and in another was received as immortal and glorious? On their principle, however, this happens every day; for they are constrained to confess that the body of Christ is visible in itself, while at the same time they say that it is invisibly concealed under the symbol of bread. And yet the promulgators of such monstrous absurdities are so far from being ashamed of their disgrace, that they stigmatize us with unprovoked and enormous calumnies, because we refuse to subscribe to them.

XVIII. If they are determined to fasten the body and blood of the Lord to the bread and wine, one must of necessity be severed from the other. For as the bread is presented separately from the cup, the body, being united to the bread, must consequently be divided from the blood contained in the cup. For when they affirm that the body is in the bread, and the blood in the cup, while the bread and the wine are at some distance from each other, no sophistry will enable them to evade this conclusion—that the body is separated from the blood. Their usual pretence, that the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood, by what they call concomitance, is perfectly frivolous, while the symbols in which they are contained are so divided. But if we elevate our views and thoughts towards heaven, to seek Christ there in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him entire, under the symbol of bread we shall eat his body, under the symbol of wine we shall distinctly drink his blood, so that we shall thus enjoy him entire. For though he has removed his flesh from us, and in his body is ascended to heaven, yet he sits at the Father’s right hand, that is, he reigns in the power, and majesty, and glory of the Father. This kingdom is neither limited to any local space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions; Christ exerts his power wherever he pleases in heaven and earth, exhibits himself present in his energetic influence, is constantly with his people, inspiring his life into them, lives in them, sustains them, strengthens and invigorates them, just as if he were corporeally present; in short, he feeds them with his own body, of which he gives them a participation by the influence of his Spirit. This is the way in which the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.

XIX. It is necessary for us to establish such a presence of Christ in the sacred supper, as neither, on the one hand, to fasten him to the element of bread, or to enclose him in it, or in any way to circumscribe him, which would derogate from his celestial glory; nor, on the other hand, to deprive him of his corporeal dimensions, or to represent his body as in different places at once, or to assign it an immensity diffused through heaven and earth, which would be clearly inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Let us never suffer ourselves to be driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained derogatory to Christ’s celestial glory; which is the case when he is represented as brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or fastened to any earthly objects; and that nothing be attributed to his body incompatible with the human nature; which is the case when it is represented as infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the same time. These absurdities being disclaimed, I readily admit whatever may serve to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, which is given to believers under the sacred symbols of the supper; and to express it in a manner implying not a mere reception of it in the imagination or apprehension of their mind, but a real enjoyment of it as the food of eternal life. Nor can any cause be assigned, why this opinion is so odious to the world, and the minds of multitudes are so unjustly prejudiced against any defence of it, but that they have been awfully infatuated with the delusions of Satan. It is certain that the doctrine we advance is in all respects in perfect harmony with the Scriptures; it contains nothing absurd, ambiguous, or obscure; it is not at all inimical to true piety, or solid edification; in short, it includes nothing that can offend, except that for several ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of the sophists prevailed over the Church, this very clear light and obvious truth was shamefully suppressed. Yet, as, in the present age also, Satan is making the most powerful exertions to oppose it, and is employing turbulent spirits to endeavour to blacken it by every possible calumny and reproach, it is necessary to be the more diligent in asserting and defending it.

XX. Now, before we proceed any further, it is requisite to discuss the institution itself; because the most plausible objection of our adversaries is, that we depart from the words of Christ. To exonerate ourselves from the false charge which they bring against us, it is highly proper, therefore, to begin with an exposition of the words. The account given by three of the evangelists, and by Paul, informs us, that “Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is given or broken for you. And he took the cup, and said, This cup is my blood of the new testament, or the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.” [1267] The advocates of transubstantiation contend that the pronoun this denotes the appearance of the bread, because the consecration is made by the whole of the sentence, and there is no visible substance, according to them, which can be indicated by it. But if they are guided by a scrupulous attention to the words, because Christ declared that which he gave into the hands of his disciples to be his body, nothing can be more at variance with a just interpretation of them, than the notion that what before was bread had now become the body of Christ. For it was that which Christ took into his hands to deliver to his disciples, that he asserts to be his body; but he took “bread.” Who does not perceive, then, that that to which this pronoun referred was bread still? and therefore nothing would be more absurd than to transfer to a mere appearance or visionary form that which was spoken of real bread. Others, when they explain the word is to denote transubstantiation, have recourse to an interpretation still more violently perverted and unnatural. They have not the least colour, therefore, for a pretence that they are influenced by a scrupulous reverence for the words of Christ. For to use the word is to signify a transmutation into another substance, is a thing never heard of, in any country or in any language. Those who acknowledge the continuance of bread in the supper, and affirm that it is accompanied with the real body of Christ, differ considerably among themselves. Those of them who express themselves more modestly, though they strenuously insist on the literal meaning of these words, “This is my body,” yet afterwards depart from their literal precision, and explain them to import that the body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread. Of the opinion maintained by them, we have already spoken, and shall soon have occasion to take further notice; at present I am only arguing respecting the words, by which they consider themselves bound, so that they cannot admit the bread to be called his body, because it is a sign of it. But if they object to every trope, and insist on taking the words in a sense strictly literal, why do they forsake the language of Christ, and adopt a phraseology of their own so very dissimilar? For there is a wide difference between these two assertions, that “the bread is the body,” and that “the body is with the bread.” But because they perceived the impossibility of supporting this simple proposition, “that the bread is the body,” they have endeavoured to escape from their embarrassment by those evasions. Others, more daring, hesitate not to assert, that, in strict propriety of speech, the bread is the body; and thereby prove themselves to be advocates for a truly literal interpretation. If it be objected, that then the bread is Christ, and Christ is God, they will deny this, because it is not expressed in the words of Christ. But they will gain nothing by their denial of it, for it is universally admitted that the whole person of Christ is offered to us in the sacrament. Now, it would be intolerable blasphemy to affirm of a frail and corruptible element, without any figure, that it is Christ. I ask them whether these two propositions are equivalent to each other—Christ is the Son of God, and Bread is the body of Christ. If they confess them to be different,—a confession which, if they hesitated, it would be easy to extort from them,—let them say wherein the difference consists. I suppose they will adduce no other point of difference, than that the bread is called the body in a sacramental sense. Whence it follows, that the words of Christ are not subject to any common rule, and ought not to be examined on the principles of grammar. I would likewise inquire of the inflexible champions of a literal interpretation, whether the words attributed to Christ, by Luke and Paul, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” do not express the same idea as the former clause, in which the bread is called his body. Surely the same reverence ought to be shown to one part of the sacrament as to the other; and because brevity is obscure, the sense is elucidated by a fuller statement. Whenever, therefore, they shall argue, from that one word, that the bread is the body of Christ, I shall adduce the interpretation furnished by the fuller account, that it is the testament in his body. For shall we seek for an expositor of greater fidelity or accuracy than Paul and Luke? Nor is it my design to diminish in the smallest degree that participation of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged is enjoyed; my only object is, to silence that foolish obstinacy which displays itself in violent contentions about words. From the authority of Paul and Luke, I understand the bread to be the body of Christ, because it is the covenant in his body. If they resist this, their contention is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding they profess to be influenced by such reverence for the words of Christ, that they dare not understand an explicit declaration of his in a figurative sense, yet this pretext is not sufficient to justify their pertinacious rejection of all the reasons which we allege to the contrary. At the same time, as I have already suggested, it is necessary to understand what is meant by “the testament in the body and blood of Christ;” because we should derive no benefit from the covenant ratified by the sacrifice of his death, if it were not followed by that secret communication by which we become one with him.

XXI. It remains for us, therefore, to acknowledge that, on account of the affinity which the things signified have with their symbols, the name of the substance has been given to the sign, in a figurative sense indeed, but by a most apt analogy. I forbear to introduce any thing of allegories and parables, lest any one should accuse me of having recourse to subterfuges, and travelling out of the present subject. I observe that this is a metonymical form of expression, which is commonly used in the Scripture in reference to sacraments. For in no other sense is it possible to understand such passages as these; when of circumcision it is said, “This is my covenant;” [1268] of the paschal lamb, “It is the Lord’s passover;” [1269] of the legal sacrifices, that they were expiations, or atonements; [1270] of the rock, from which the water issued in the desert, “That Rock was Christ.” [1271] And not only is the name of something superior transferred to that which is inferior, but, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is likewise given to the thing signified; as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in the bush, [1272] when the ark of the covenant is called God, [1273] and the Holy Spirit, a dove. [1274] For, though there is an essential difference between the symbol and the thing signified, the former being corporeal, terrestrial, and visible, and the latter spiritual, celestial, and invisible, yet, as the symbol is not a vain and useless memorial, a mere adumbration of the thing which it has been consecrated to represent, but also a true and real exhibition of it, why may not the name of that which it signifies be justly applied to it? If symbols invented by man, which are rather emblems of things absent, than tokens of things present, of which also they very frequently give a delusive representation, are, nevertheless, sometimes distinguished by the names of the things which they signify, there is far greater reason why the symbols instituted by God should borrow the names of those things of which they always exhibit a correct and faithful representation, and by the truth of which they are always accompanied. So great, therefore, is the similitude and affinity of the one to the other, that there is nothing at all unnatural in such a mutual interchange of appellations. Let our adversaries cease, then, to assail us with their ridiculous wit, by calling us Tropologists, because we explain the sacramental phraseology according to the common usage of the Scripture. For as there is a great similarity in many respects between the various sacraments, so this metonymical transfer of names is common to them all. As the apostle, therefore, states, that “the Rock” from which flowed “spiritual drink” for the Israelites, “was Christ,” [1275] because it was a visible symbol, under which “that spiritual drink” was received, though not in a manner discernible by the corporeal eye, so bread is now called the body of Christ, because it is the symbol under which the Lord truly offers us his body to eat. And that no one may despise this as a novel sentiment, we shall show that the same was entertained by Augustine. He says, “If the sacraments had not some similitude to those things of which they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. On account of this similitude, they frequently take the names even of the things which they represent. Therefore, as the sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sense that body itself, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is that blood itself, so the sacrament of faith is called faith.” His works contain many similar passages, which it would be useless to collect, as this one is sufficient; only the reader ought to be apprized that this holy father repeats and confirms the same observation in an epistle to Euodius. It is a frivolous subterfuge to plead, that when Augustine speaks of metonymical expressions, as frequently and commonly used respecting the sacraments, he makes no mention of the Lord’s supper; for, if this were admitted, we could no longer reason from the genus to the species, or from the whole to a part; it would not be a good argument to say, that every animal is endued with the power of motion, therefore oxen and horses are endued with the power of motion. All further dispute on this point, however, is precluded by the language of the same writer on another occasion—“that Christ did not hesitate to call it his body, when he gave it as the sign of his body.” Again: “It was wonderful patience in Christ, to admit Judas to the feast, in which he instituted and gave to his disciples the emblem of his body and of his blood.”

XXII. But if some obstinate man, shutting his eyes against every other consideration, should insist on this single expression, “This is my body,” as though it made a distinction between the supper and all other sacraments, the answer is easy. They allege that the verb substantive is too emphatical to admit of any figure. If we grant this, the verb substantive is also used by Paul, where he says, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” [1276] But the communion of the body is something different from the body itself. In almost all cases of sacraments, we find the same word used—“This is my covenant.” “It is the Lord’s passover.” [1277] And to mention no more, when Paul says, “That Rock was Christ,” [1278] why do they consider the verb substantive less emphatical in that passage than in the speech of Christ? Let them also explain the force of the verb substantive in that place where John says, “The Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” [1279] For if they obstinately adhere to their rule, they will destroy the eternal existence of the Spirit, as if it commenced at the ascension of Christ. Let them answer, in the last place, what is the meaning of Paul, when he calls baptism “the washing of regeneration, and renewing,” [1280] though it is evidently useless to many. But nothing is more conclusive against them than that passage where Paul says, that the Church is Christ. For having drawn a similitude from the human body, he adds, “So also is Christ;” [1281] by which he means not the only begotten Son of God, in himself, but in his members. I think I have so far succeeded, that all men of sense and integrity must be disgusted with the foul calumnies of our adversaries, when they charge us with giving no credit to the words of Christ, which we receive with as much submission as themselves, and consider with greater reverence. Indeed, their supine negligence is a proof that it is a subject of little concern to them, what was the will or meaning of Christ, provided they can use him as a shield to defend their obstinacy; as our diligence in inquiring into Christ’s true meaning is a sufficient proof of our high regard to his authority. They maliciously represent, that human reason prevents us from believing what Christ himself has declared with his sacred mouth; but how unjustly they stigmatize us with this reproach, I have explained, in a great measure, already, and shall presently make still more evident. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from believing Christ when he speaks, and immediately acquiescing in every word he utters. The only question is, whether it be criminal to inquire into his genuine meaning.

XXIII. To show themselves men of letters, these good doctors prohibit even the least departure from the literal signification. I reply, When the Scripture calls God “a man of war,” because this language would be too harsh, unless it be explained in a figurative sense, I hesitate not to consider it as a comparison borrowed from men. And indeed it was upon no other pretext that the ancient Anthropomorphites molested the orthodox fathers, than by laying hold of such expressions as these: “The eyes of the Lord behold; It entereth into the ears of the Lord; His hand is stretched out; The earth is his footstool;” and accusing them of depriving God of his body, which the Scripture ascribes to him. If this canon of interpretation be admitted, all the light of faith will be overwhelmed in the crudest barbarism. For what monstrous absurdities will not fanatics be able to elicit from the Scripture, if they are permitted to allege every detached and ill-understood word and syllable in confirmation of their notions? The objection which they urge, from the improbability that Christ, when he was preparing peculiar consolation for his disciples in seasons of adversity, should express himself in enigmatical or obscure language, is completely in our favour. For if it had not been understood by the apostles, that the bread was called his body in a figurative sense, because it was a symbol of his body, they would undoubtedly have been disturbed about so monstrous a declaration. Almost at the same moment, John states that they were embarrassed and perplexed with every minute difficulty. They who debated among themselves how Christ was to go to the Father, and were at a loss to know how he would depart from this world; who could understand nothing that was said of a heavenly Father, because they had not seen him; how could they have been so ready to believe any thing so entirely repugnant to every dictate of reason, as that Christ was sitting at the table before their eyes, and yet was invisibly enclosed in the bread? By eating the bread without any hesitation, they testified their consent, and hence it appears that they understood the words of Christ in the same sense that we do, considering that it is common in all sacraments for the name of the sign to be transferred to the thing signified. To the disciples, therefore, it was, as it is to us, a certain and clear consolation, involved in no enigma; nor is there any other cause to be assigned why some reject our interpretation, except that the devil has blinded them by his delusions, in consequence of which they imagine enigmatical obscurities, where a beautiful figure furnishes such an obvious and natural meaning. Besides, if we rigidly adhere to the letter, what Christ said of the bread would be inconsistent with what he said of the cup. He calls the bread his body, he calls the wine his blood: either this must be a vain repetition, or a distinction which separates the body from the blood. It might be said of the cup, This is my body, as truly as of the bread; and the converse of this proposition would be equally correct, that the bread is his blood. If they reply, that we ought to consider for what end or use the symbols were instituted,—this I acknowledge; but it is impossible to free their error from this absurd consequence, that the bread is the blood, and the wine the body. Now I am at a loss how to understand them, when they admit the bread and the body to be different things, and yet assert that the bread is properly and without any figure called the body; as if any one should say that a garment is different from a man, and yet that it is properly called a man. At the same time, as if their victory consisted in obstinacy and calumny, they charge us with accusing Christ of falsehood, if we inquire into the true meaning of his words. Now it will be easy for the readers to judge how unjustly we are treated by these syllable-hunters, when they persuade the simple to believe that we derogate from the authority due to the words of Christ, which we have proved to be outrageously perverted and confounded by them, but to be faithfully and accurately explained by us.

XXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely effaced, without repelling another calumny; for they accuse us of being so devoted to human reason, as to limit the power of God by the order of nature, and to allow him no more than our own understanding teaches us to ascribe to him. Against such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the doctrine which I have maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I am far from measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or subjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy that we have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his flesh from heaven, just as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Whence is it that flesh has the power of giving life to our souls? Every one will pronounce it not to be from nature. No more will it accord with human reason that the flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to us. In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured with admiration of the secret power of God. But these good zealots contrive a miracle, without which God himself, with all his power, disappears from their view. I would again request of my readers a diligent consideration of the nature and tendency of our doctrine, whether it depends on human reason, or on the wings of faith rises above the world and ascends to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both by the external symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our souls with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives not that many miracles are comprehended in these few words, is more than stupid; for there is nothing more preternatural than for souls to derive spiritual and heavenly life from the flesh, which had its origin from the earth, and was subject to death; nothing is more incredible than for things separated from each other by all the distance of heaven and earth, notwithstanding that immense local distance, to be not only connected, but united, so that our souls receive nourishment from the flesh of Christ. Let these fanatics, then, no longer attempt to render us odious by such a foul calumny, as though we, in any respect, limited the infinite power of God; which is either a most stupid mistake, or an impudent falsehood. For the question here respects not what God could do, but what he has chosen to do. We affirm that what pleased him, came to pass. It pleased him for Christ to become in all respects like his brethren, sin excepted. [1282] What is the nature of our body? Has it not its proper and certain dimensions? is it not contained in some particular place, and capable of being felt and seen? And why, say they, may not God cause the same flesh to occupy many different places, to be contained in no particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But how can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to cause a body to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same time? It is like demanding of him to cause light to be at once both light and darkness. But he wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh. Whenever it shall be his pleasure, indeed, he will turn darkness into light, and light into darkness; but to require that light and darkness shall no longer be different, is to aim at perverting the order of Divine wisdom. Therefore body must be body, spirit must be spirit, every thing must be subject to that law, and retain that condition, which was fixed by God at its creation. And the condition of a body is such, that it must occupy one particular place, and have its proper form and dimensions. In this condition did Christ assume a body, to which, as Augustine observes, “he gave incorruption and glory, but without depriving it of its nature and reality.” The testimony of the Scripture is clear—that he ascended to heaven, whence he will come again, in like manner as he was seen to ascend. [1283]

XXV. They reply, that they have the word in which the will of God is clearly revealed; that is, if they be allowed to banish from the Church the gift of interpretation which elucidates the word. I confess that they have the word and quote the letter of Scripture; but just as did the Anthropomorphites in past ages, who represented God to be corporeal; just as did Marcion and the Manichæans, who attributed to Christ a celestial or visionary body. For they quoted these texts: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” [1284] “Christ made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man.” [1285] These groveling souls imagine that God can have no power, unless the whole order of nature be reversed by the monster which they have fabricated in their own brains; but this is an attempt to circumscribe God, and to measure his power by the fancies of men. For from what word have they learned that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet is on earth, concealed in an invisible manner under innumerable pieces of bread? They will say that necessity requires this, in order to the body of Christ being given in the supper. The truth is, that when they had determined to conclude, from the language of Christ, that his body was eaten in a carnal manner, carried away with this prejudice, they found it necessary to invent that subtlety, which the whole tenor of the Scripture contradicts. That we derogate any thing from the power of God, is so far from being true, that our doctrine peculiarly tends to magnify it. But as they never cease to accuse us of defrauding God of his due honour, by a rejection of every thing which natural reason finds it difficult to believe, though promised by the mouth of Christ himself, I repeat the answer which I have lately given, that we consult not natural reason respecting the mysteries of faith, but that, with the placid docility and gentleness of spirit recommended by James, [1286] we receive the doctrine which comes down from heaven. Yet, in a point in which they run into a pernicious error, I admit that we pursue a useful moderation. On hearing the words of Christ, “This is my body,” they imagine a miracle the most distant from his intention. This notion gives birth to prodigious absurdities; but, having already embarrassed themselves by their foolish precipitation, they plunge themselves into the abyss of the Divine omnipotence, in order to extinguish the light of truth. Hence the haughty presumption, with which they profess to have no wish to know how Christ is concealed under the bread, being content with that declaration, “This is my body.” We, on the contrary, with equal obedience and care, endeavour to ascertain the true meaning of this passage, as we do of all others; nor do we, with preposterous eagerness, temerity, and indiscretion, seize the first thought which presents itself to our minds, but after diligent meditation we embrace that sense which the Spirit of God suggests; established in which, we look down with contempt on every opposition made to it by the wisdom of this world; we even impose restraints on our own minds, that they may not dare to utter a word of cavil, and keep them humble to prevent their murmuring against the authority of God. Hence has proceeded that exposition of the words of Christ, which all, who are but moderately versed in the Scripture, know to be agreeable to its invariable usage respecting sacraments. Nor do we esteem it unlawful, in a difficult case, after the example of the holy virgin, to inquire how it can be. [1287]

XXVI. But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of true believers, than a knowledge that the doctrine which we have advanced is drawn from the pure word of God, and rests upon its authority, I will demonstrate this with all possible brevity. It is not from Aristotle, but from the Holy Spirit, that we have learned that the body of Christ, since its resurrection, is limited, and received into heaven till the last day. I am fully aware that our adversaries contemptuously elude the passages which are adduced for this purpose. [1288] Whenever Christ speaks of his approaching departure from the world, they reply that this departure was nothing more than a change of his mortal state. But if this were correct, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit to supply the defect of his absence, as they express it, since the Spirit does not succeed to his place, nor does Christ himself descend again from the glory of heaven to assume the condition of this mortal life. The advent of the Spirit, and the ascension of Christ, are clearly opposed to each other; and, therefore, it is impossible for Christ to dwell with us, according to his flesh, in the same manner in which he sends his Spirit. Besides, he expressly declares that he shall not always be with his disciples in the world. [1289] This declaration also they think they have completely explained away, by saying that Christ merely intended that he should not always be poor and mean, and exposed to the necessities of this transitory life. But they are evidently contradicted by the context, which relates, not to his poverty, or indigence, or any of the miseries of this life, but to his reception of respect and honour. The unction performed by the woman displeased the disciples, because they thought it an unnecessary and useless expense, bordering on luxury; and, therefore, they wished that the value of the ointment, which they considered as improperly lavished, had been distributed to the poor. Christ said, that he should not always be present to receive such honour. Augustine has given the same explanation of this passage, in the following explicit language:—“When Christ said, Me ye have not always with you, he spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his majesty, his providence, and his ineffable and invisible grace, is accomplished what he said on another occasion—Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world; but, with respect to the body, which the Word assumed, which was born of the virgin, which was apprehended by the Jews, which was affixed to the tree, which was taken down from the cross, which was wrapped in linen clothes, which was laid in the sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, this declaration is fulfilled—Me ye have not always with you. Why? Because in his corporeal presence he conversed with his disciples for forty days, and while they were attending him, seen, but not followed by them, he ascended to heaven. He is not here; for he sits at the right hand of the Father: and yet he is here; for he has not withdrawn the presence of his majesty: otherwise, according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always with us; but, with respect to his corporeal presence, he said with truth, Me ye have not always with you. For the Church had his bodily presence for a few days; now it retains him by faith, but does not behold him with corporeal eyes.” Here let us briefly remark, this father represents Christ as present with us in three respects—in his majesty, his providence, and his ineffable grace; under the last of which I comprehend the wonderful communion of his body and blood; only we must understand this to be effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by a fictitious enclosure of his body under the bread. For our Lord has declared that he has flesh and bones, capable of being felt and seen; and to go away and to ascend import not a mere appearance of ascent and departure, but an actual performance of that which the words express. Shall we, then, it will be said by some, assign to Christ a particular district of heaven? I reply, with Augustine, that this question is too curious, and altogether unnecessary; provided we believe that he is in heaven, that is enough.

XXVII. Does not the term ascension, which is so frequently repeated, signify a removal from one place to another? This they deny, because they consider his exaltation as only denoting the majesty of his empire. But I ask, What was the manner of his ascent? Was he not carried up on high in the view of his disciples? Do not the evangelists expressly state that he was received up into heaven? [1290] These acute sophists reply that he was concealed from their sight by an interposing cloud, to teach believers that thenceforward he would not be visible in the world. As though, to produce a belief of his invisible presence, he ought not rather to have vanished in a moment, or to have been enveloped in the cloud without moving from where he stood. But as he was carried up into the air, and, by the interposition of a cloud between him and his disciples, showed that he was no longer to be sought for on earth, we confidently conclude that his residence is now in heaven. This also is affirmed by Paul, who teaches us to expect him from thence. [1291] For this reason the angels admonished the disciples—“Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” [1292] Here also the adversaries of sound doctrine have recourse to what they think an ingenious evasion—that he will then become visible who has never departed from the world, but remained invisible with his people. As though the angels, in that address, insinuated a twofold presence, and did not simply make the disciples ocular witnesses of his ascension, with a view to preclude every doubt; just as if they had said, Received up into heaven in your sight, he has taken possession of the celestial empire; it remains for you to wait with patience till he shall come again as the judge of the world; for he is now entered into heaven, not to occupy it alone, but to assemble you and all the godly to enjoy it with him.

XXVIII. As the advocates of this spurious doctrine are not ashamed to defend it by the suffrages of the fathers, and particularly of Augustine, I will briefly expose the disingenuousness of this attempt. Their testimonies having been collected by learned and pious writers, I have no inclination to go over the same ground; any one who wishes may consult their writings. Nor even from Augustine shall I adduce every passage which would serve the argument; but shall content myself with showing, by a few extracts, that he is, beyond all doubt, perfectly in harmony with us. In order to deprive us of him, our adversaries allege that, in various parts of his works, he states the flesh and blood of Christ, even the victim once offered on the cross, to be dispensed in the sacred supper; but this is altogether frivolous; since he also calls the consecrated symbols either “the eucharist,” or “the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood.” But in what sense he uses the words flesh and blood, it is unnecessary to make any long or circuitous inquiry; for he explains himself by saying, “that sacraments take their names from the similitude of those things which they signify, and, therefore, in some sense, the sacrament of the body is the body.” With this corresponds another well known passage: “The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body, when he delivered the sign of it.” They object again, that Augustine expressly says, that the body of Christ falls to the earth, and enters into the mouth. I reply, that he says this in the same sense in which he affirms it to be consumed; because he connects both these things together. Nor does any objection arise from his saying, that when the mystery is finished, the bread is consumed; because he had just before said, “As these things are known to man, being done by man, they may have honour as holy things, but not as miracles.” And to the same effect is another expression, which our adversaries, without sufficient consideration, represent as in their favour; that, “when Christ presented the mystical bread to his disciples, he, in a certain sense, held himself in his own hands.” For, by introducing this qualifying phrase in a certain sense, he sufficiently declares that the body of Christ was not truly or really enclosed in the bread. Nor ought this to be thought strange, for in another place he expressly maintains, “That if bodies be deprived of their local spaces, they will be nowhere, and consequently will cease to have any existence.” It is a poor cavil, to say that this passage does not relate to the sacred supper, in which God exerts a special power; because the question had been agitated respecting the body of Christ, and this holy father, professedly answering it, says, “Christ has given immortality to his body, but has not deprived it of its nature. In a corporeal form, therefore, he is not to be considered as universally diffused; for we must beware of asserting his Divinity in such a way as to destroy the truth of his body. It does not follow, that, because God is every where, all that is in him is every where also.” The reason is immediately added—“For one person is God and man, and both constitute one Christ; as God, he is every where; as man, he is in heaven.” What stupidity would it have betrayed not to except the mystery of the supper, a thing so serious and important, if it contained any thing inconsistent with the doctrine he was maintaining! Yet, if any one will attentively read what follows, he will find, that under that general doctrine, the Lord’s supper is also comprehended. He says, that Christ, who is, in one person, the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man, is every where present as God; that, as God, he resides in the temple of God, that is, in the Church; and yet that he occupies some particular place in heaven, according to the dimensions of a real body. To unite Christ with his Church, we see he does not bring down his body from heaven; which he certainly would have done, if that body could not become our food without being enclosed under the bread. In another place, describing how Christ is now possessed by believers, he says, “You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the food and drink of the altar.” Whether he is correct in placing a superstitious ceremony among the symbols of Christ’s presence, I am not now discussing; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he does not imagine Christ to have two bodies, one visibly seated in heaven, and the other invisibly concealed under the bread. If any further explication be necessary, it is soon after added, “That we always have Christ, according to the presence of his majesty; but that, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, Me ye have not always.” Our adversaries reply, that it is also observed, at the same time, “that according to his ineffable and invisible grace, his declaration is fulfilled—Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” But this is nothing in their favour, because, after all, it is restricted to that majesty which is always opposed to the body, and his flesh is expressly distinguished from his power and grace. In another passage of this author, we find the same antithesis, or contrast, “that Christ left his disciples in his corporeal presence, that he might be with them by his spiritual presence;” which clearly distinguishes the substance of the flesh from the power of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, notwithstanding we are widely separated from him by local distance. He frequently uses the same mode of expression, as when he says, “Christ will come again, in his corporeal presence, to judge the living and the dead, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence, he was to come to his disciples, and to be with his whole Church on earth, to the end of time. This discourse, therefore, was addressed to the believers, whom he had already begun to keep with his corporeal presence, and whom he was about to leave by his corporeal absence, that with the Father he might keep them by his spiritual presence.” To explain corporeal to mean visible, is mere trifling; for he opposes the body of Christ to his Divine power; and by adding, “that with the Father he might keep them,” clearly expresses that the Saviour communicates his grace to us from heaven by the Holy Spirit.

XXIX. As they place so much confidence in this subterfuge of an invisible presence, let us see how far it serves their cause. In the first place, they cannot produce a single syllable from the Scriptures to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted, what no man of sound judgment will concede to them, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the supper, without being concealed under the form of bread. Now, so far is this from being an admitted axiom, that it is the very point in dispute between them and us. And while they talk in this way, they are constrained to attribute to Christ a double body, because, upon their principle, he is visible in heaven, and at the same time, by a special dispensation, is invisible in the sacred supper. Whether this is correct or not, it is easy to judge from various passages of Scripture, and particularly from the testimony of Peter; who says of Christ, that “the heavens must receive him, until the times of restitution of all things.” [1293] These men maintain that he is in all places, but without any form. They object that it is unreasonable to subject the nature of a glorified body to the laws of common nature. But this objection leads to the extravagant notion of Servetus, which justly deserves the detestation of all believers, that the body of Christ, after his ascension, was absorbed in his Divinity. I will not assert, that they hold this opinion; but if it be considered as one of the attributes of the glorified body, to fill all places in an invisible manner, it is evident that the corporeal substance must be destroyed, and no difference will be left between the Divinity and the humanity. Besides, if the body of Christ be multiform and variable, so as to appear in one place, and to be invisible in another, what becomes of the nature of a body which consists in having its proper dimensions? and where is its unity? With far greater propriety Tertullian argues, that the body of Christ was a true and natural body, because the emblem of it is presented to us in the mystery of the supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual life. And, indeed, it was of his glorified body, that Christ said, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” [1294] We see how the truth of his body is proved by the lips of Christ himself, because it can be felt and seen; deprive it of these qualities, and it will cease to be a body. They are always recurring to their subterfuge of the dispensation which they have invented. But it is our duty to receive what Christ absolutely declares, in such a manner, as to admit, without any exception, whatever he is pleased to affirm. He proved that he was not a phantom, because he was visible in his flesh. If that be taken away which he asserts to belong to the nature of his body, will it not be necessary to frame a new definition of a body? Now, with all their sophistry, they can extract nothing to support their imaginary dispensation from that passage of Paul, where he says, that “From heaven we look for the Saviour, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” [1295] For we cannot hope for a conformity to Christ in those qualities which they attribute to him, which would make all our bodies invisible and infinite; nor will they find a man foolish enough to be persuaded to believe so great an absurdity. Let them, then, no longer ascribe to the glorified body of Christ the property of being in many places at once, or of being contained within no particular space. In short, let them either deny the resurrection of the flesh, or admit that Christ, though clothed with celestial glory, has not divested himself of his flesh; for he will make us, in our flesh, partakers of the same glory, as we shall enjoy a resurrection similar to his. For what is there more clearly stated in any part of the Scripture, than that as Christ really assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin, and suffered in our flesh to atone for our sins, so he resumed the same flesh, at his resurrection, and carried it up into heaven? For all the hope that we have of our resurrection and ascension to heaven, is founded on the resurrection and ascension of Christ; who, as Tertullian says, “has taken the pledge of our resurrection into heaven with him.” Now, how weak and faint would this hope be, if the real flesh of Christ had not truly risen from the dead, and entered into the kingdom of heaven! But it is essential to a real body, to have its particular form and dimensions, and to be contained within some certain space. Let us hear no more, then, of this ridiculous notion, which fastens the minds of men, and Christ himself, to the bread. For what is the use of this invisible presence concealed under the bread, but to lead those who desire to be united to Christ, to confine their attention to that symbol? But the Lord intended to withdraw, not only our eyes, but all our senses, from the earth, when he forbade the woman to touch him, because he was not yet ascended to his Father. [1296] When he saw Mary, with pious affection and reverence, hastening to kiss his feet, there was no reason for his disapprobation and prohibition of such an act, before his ascension to heaven, except that heaven was the only place where he chose to be sought. It is objected, that he was afterwards seen by Stephen; [1297] but the answer is easy; for, in order to this, no change of place was necessary to Christ, who could impart to the eyes of his servant a supernatural perspicacity, capable of penetrating into heaven. The same observation is applicable to his appearance to Paul. [1298] They allege that Christ came out of the sepulchre, while the sepulchre remained closed, and entered into the room where his disciples were assembled, while the doors continued shut; but this contributes no support to their error. For as the water was like a solid pavement, forming a road for Christ when he walked on the lake, so it is no wonder if the hardness of the stone gave way, to make him a passage; though it is more probable that the stone removed at his command, and after his departure returned to its place. And to enter while the doors remained shut, does not imply his penetrating through the solid matter, but his opening an entrance for himself by his Divine power, so that, in a miraculous manner, he instantaneously stood in the midst of his disciples, though the doors were shut. What they adduce from Luke, that “he vanished out of the sight” of his two disciples, with whom he had walked to Emmaus, [1299] is of no service to their cause, but is in favour of ours; for, according to the testimony of the same evangelist, when he joined these disciples, he assumed no new appearance in order to conceal himself; but “their eyes were holden, that they should not know him.” [1300] Our adversaries, however, not only transform Christ, to keep him in the world, but they represent him as unlike himself, and altogether different on earth from what he is in heaven. By such extravagances, in short, they turn the body of Christ into a spirit, though not by positive assertion, yet by direct implication; and not content with this, they attribute to it qualities utterly incompatible with each other; whence it follows, of necessity, that he must have two bodies.

XXX. Though we should grant them what they contend for, respecting its invisible presence, still this would be no proof of its infinity, without which it will be a vain attempt to enclose Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ be capable of being every where at once, without any limitation of place, it will not be credible that it is concealed under the bread in the sacred supper. It was this necessity which caused them to introduce their monstrous notion of its ubiquity. But it has been shown, by clear and strong testimonies of Scripture, that the body of Christ was, like other human bodies, circumscribed by certain dimensions; and its ascension to heaven made it evident that it was not in all places, but that it left one place, when it removed to another. Nor is the promise, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,” [1301] to be applied, as they suppose it should be, to his body. In the first place, on this supposition, there will be no such perpetual connection, unless Christ dwells in us in a corporeal manner, without the use of the sacramental supper; and therefore they have no sufficient cause for contending so fiercely respecting the words of Christ, in order to enclose Christ under the bread. In the next place, the context evinces, that Christ there has not the most distant reference to his flesh, but promises his disciples invincible aid to sustain and defend them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For having assigned them a difficult province, to encourage them to undertake it without hesitation, and to discharge it with undaunted resolution, he supports them with the assurance of his presence; as though he had said, they should never want his aid, which nothing could overcome. Unless these men wished to involve every thing in confusion, ought they not to distinguish the nature of this presence? It is evident that some persons would rather incur the greatest disgrace by betraying their ignorance, than relinquish even the least particle of their error. I speak not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so carried away with the heat of contention, as to affirm that, on account of the union of the two natures in Christ, wherever his Divinity is, his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is there also; as if that union had mingled the two natures so as to form some intermediate kind of being, which is neither God nor man. This notion was maintained by Eutyches, and since his time by Servetus. But it is clearly ascertained from the Scriptures, that in the one person of Christ the two natures are united in such a manner, that each retains its peculiar properties undiminished. That Eutyches was justly condemned as a heretic, our adversaries will not deny; it is surprising that they overlook the cause of his condemnation, which was, that by taking away the difference between the two natures, and insisting on the unity of the person, he made the Divinity human, and deified the humanity. What absurdity, therefore, is it to mingle heaven and earth together, rather than not to draw the body down from the celestial sanctuary! They endeavour to justify themselves by adducing these texts: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven;” and, “The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” [1302] But it argues the same stupidity to disregard the communication of properties, a term which was with good reason adopted by the holy fathers in the early ages. When Paul says that “The Lord of glory” was “crucified,” [1303] he certainly does not intend that Christ suffered any thing in his Divinity, but that the same person, who suffered as an abject and despised man, was also, as God, the Lord of glory. In the same sense, the Son of man was in heaven; because the same Christ, who, according to the flesh, dwelt on earth as the Son of man, as God, was always in heaven. For this reason, in the same passage, he represents himself as having descended from heaven, according to his Divinity; not that his Divinity quitted heaven to confine itself in the prison of the body; but because, though it filled all space, yet it dwelt corporeally, or naturally, and in a certain ineffable manner, in the humanity. It is a distinction common in the schools, and which I am not ashamed to repeat, that though Christ is every where entire, yet all that is in him is not every where. And I sincerely wish that the schoolmen themselves had duly considered the meaning of this observation; for then we should never have heard of their stupid notion of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament. Therefore, our Mediator, as he is every where entire, is always near to his people; and in the sacred supper exhibits himself present in a peculiar manner, yet not with all that belongs to him; because, as we have stated, his body has been received into heaven, and remains there till he shall come to judgment.

XXXI. They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the bread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be present, unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us, therefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down from heaven. Let the readers judge on which side the truth lies. Only let us hear no more of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the sacrament, unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a heavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the earth, in order to be united to us.

XXXII. If any one inquire of me respecting the manner, I shall not be ashamed to acknowledge, that it is a mystery too sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend; and, to be still more explicit, I rather experience it, than understand it. Here, therefore, without any controversy, I embrace the truth of God, on which I can safely rely. He pronounces his flesh to be the food, and his blood the drink, of my soul. I offer him my soul, to be nourished with such aliment. In his sacred supper, he commands me, under the symbols of bread and wine, to take, and eat, and drink, his body and blood. I doubt not that he truly presents, and that I receive them. Only I reject the absurdities which appear to be either degrading to his majesty, or inconsistent with the reality of his human nature, and are at the same time repugnant to the word of God, which informs us that Christ has been received into the glory of the celestial kingdom, where he is exalted above every condition of the world, and which is equally careful to attribute to his human nature the properties of real humanity. Nor ought this to seem incredible or unreasonable, because, as the kingdom of Christ is wholly spiritual, so his communications with his Church are not at all to be regulated by the order of the present world; or, to use the words of Augustine, “This mystery, as well as others, is celebrated by man, but in a Divine manner; it is administered on earth, but in a heavenly manner.” The presence of Christ’s body, I say, is such as the nature of the sacrament requires; where we affirm that it appears with so much virtue and efficacy, as not only to afford our minds an undoubted confidence of eternal life, but also to give us an assurance of the resurrection and immortality of our bodies. For they are vivified by his immortal flesh, and in some degree participate his immortality. Those who go beyond this in their hyperbolical representations, merely obscure the simple and obvious truth by such intricacies. If any person be not yet satisfied, I would request him to consider, that we are now treating of a sacrament, every part of which ought to be referred to faith. Now, we feed our faith by this participation of the body of Christ which we have mentioned, as fully as they do, who bring him down from heaven. At the same time, I candidly confess, that I reject that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our souls, or that transfusion of it into us, which they teach; because it is sufficient for us that Christ inspires life into our souls from the substance of his flesh, and even infuses his own life into us, though his flesh never actually enters into us. I may also remark, that the analogy of faith, to which Paul directs us to conform every interpretation of the Scripture, is in this case, beyond all doubt, eminently in our favour. Let the adversaries of so clear a truth examine by what rule of faith they regulate themselves. “He that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.” [1304] Such persons, though they may conceal it, or may not observe it, do, in effect, deny the reality of his flesh.

XXXIII. The same judgment is to be formed of our participation, which they suppose not to be enjoyed at all, unless the flesh of Christ be swallowed in the bread. But we do no small injury to the Holy Spirit, unless we believe that our communion with the flesh and blood of Christ is the effect of his incomprehensible influence. Even if the virtue of this mystery, such as we have represented it, and as it was understood by the ancient Church, had received the consideration justly due to it, for four hundred years past, there would have been quite enough to satisfy us, and the door would have been shut against many pernicious errors, which have kindled dreadful dissensions, by which the Church has been miserably agitated in the present, as well as past ages. But sophistical men insist on a hyperbolical kind of presence, which is never taught in the Scripture; and they contend as eagerly for this foolish and absurd imagination, as if the whole of religion consisted in the enclosure of Christ in the bread. It principally concerns us to know how the body of Christ, which was once delivered for us, is made ours, and how we are made partakers of his blood which was shed; for the entire possession of Christ crucified consists in an enjoyment of all his benefits. Now, leaving these things, which are of such great importance, and even neglecting and forgetting them, these sophists take no pleasure but in this thorny question; how the body of Christ is concealed under the bread, or under the form of the bread. They falsely pretend that all that we teach respecting a spiritual participation, is contrary to what they call the true and real participation; because we regard nothing but the manner, which, in their opinion, is corporeal, as they enclose Christ in the bread, but in ours is spiritual, because the secret influence of the Spirit is the bond which unites us to Christ. Nor is there any more truth in their other objection, that we attend to nothing but the fruit or effect which believers experience from feeding on the flesh of Christ. For we have already said, that Christ himself is the matter or substance of the sacred supper, and that it is in consequence of this, that we are absolved from our sins by the sacrifice of his death, are washed in his blood, and by his resurrection are raised to the hope of the heavenly life. But the foolish imagination, of which Lombard was the author, has perverted their minds, while they have supposed the sacrament to consist in eating the flesh of Christ. For these are his words: “The sacrament, without the thing, consists in the forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and blood of Christ; the thing, without the sacrament, is his mystical flesh.” Again, a little after: “The thing signified and contained is the proper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and not contained, is his mystical body.” With his distinction between the flesh of Christ, and the power which it has to nourish, I fully agree; but his notion, of what is a sacrament, and as contained under the bread, is an error not to be endured. Hence proceeded a false idea of sacramental eating, because they supposed the body of Christ to be eaten by impious and profane persons, notwithstanding they were strangers to him. But the flesh of Christ itself, in the mystery of the supper, is as much a spiritual thing, as our eternal salvation. Whence we conclude, that persons who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, can no more eat the flesh of Christ, than drink wine which has no taste. It is certainly offering an insult, and doing violence to Christ, to attribute to him a body all feeble and dead, which is promiscuously distributed to unbelievers; and it is expressly contradicted by his own words: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” [1305] They reply, that the discourse from which this text is quoted does not treat of sacramental eating; and this I concede to them; only let them not be perpetually striking on the same rock, that the flesh of Christ may be eaten without any benefit. But I would wish them to inform me how long they retain it after they have eaten it. Here I believe they will find it impossible to escape. But they object, that the truth of the promises of God can sustain no diminution or failure from the ingratitude of men. This I admit; and I also maintain, that the virtue of this mystery remains unimpaired, notwithstanding wicked men exert their utmost efforts to destroy it. It is one thing, however, for the body of Christ to be offered, and another for it to be received. Christ presents this spiritual meat and spiritual drink to all; some receive them with avidity, others fastidiously reject them; shall their rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will plead, that their sentiment is supported by this similitude—that the flesh of Christ, though it be not relished by unbelievers, nevertheless still continues to be flesh. But I deny that it can ever be eaten without the taste of faith; or, if the language of Augustine be preferred, I deny that men carry away from the sacrament any more than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus, nothing is taken from the sacrament, but its truth and efficacy remain unimpaired, notwithstanding the wicked depart empty from its external participation. If our adversaries object again, that it derogates from these words, “This is my body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread, and nothing more, the answer is easy—That God will have his veracity discovered, not in the reception itself, but in the constancy of his goodness, since he is ready to impart to the unworthy, and even liberally offers to them, that which they reject. And this is the perfection of the sacrament, which the whole world cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are as truly given to the unworthy, as to the elect and faithful people of God; but it is likewise true, that as rain, falling upon a hard rock, runs off from it without penetrating into the stone, thus the wicked, by their obduracy, repel the grace of God, so that it does not enter into their hearts. Besides, a reception of Christ, without faith, is as great an absurdity, as for seed to germinate in the fire. Their inquiry, how Christ came for condemnation to some, unless they receive him unworthily, is a groundless cavil; for we nowhere read that the perdition of man is owing to an unworthy reception of Christ, but rather to a rejection of him. Nor can they derive any assistance from the parable in which Christ speaks of some seed springing up among thorns, and being afterwards choked and destroyed; for he is there showing what value belongs to that temporary faith, which our adversaries suppose to be unnecessary to a participation of the flesh and blood of Christ, placing Judas, in this respect, on an equality with Peter. Their error is rather refuted by another part of the same parable, in which Christ speaks of some seed as having fallen by the way-side, and some on stony ground, neither of which took any root. [1306] Whence it follows, that the obduracy of unbelievers is such an obstacle, that Christ does not reach them. Whoever desires our salvation to be promoted by this mystery, will find nothing more proper than that believers, conducted to the fountain should derive life from the Son of God. But the dignity of it is sufficiently magnified, when we remember, that it is a medium by which we are incorporated into Christ; or by which, after our incorporation into him, the connection is more and more strengthened, till he perfectly unites us with himself, in the heavenly life. They object, that Paul ought not to have made unbelievers “guilty of the body and blood of the

Lord,” [1307] unless they had been partakers of them. But I answer, that they are not condemned for having eaten and drunk his body and blood, but only for having profaned the mystery, by trampling under foot the pledge of our holy union with God, which ought to have been received by them with reverence.

XXXIV. Now, because Augustine is the principal among the ancient fathers who has asserted this point of doctrine, that the sacraments sustain no diminution, and that the grace which they represent is not frustrated by the unbelief or wickedness of men, it will be useful to adduce his own words, which will clearly prove that those who expose the body of Christ to be eaten by dogs, [1308] are chargeable with an injudicious and culpable perversion of his meaning, in applying it to the present argument. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without any influence of his Spirit, or any effect of his grace. Augustine, on the contrary, carefully examining these words, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life,” [1309] says, “This is the virtue of the sacrament, not the mere visible sacrament; and that internally, not externally; he who eats with his heart, and not with his teeth;” from which he concludes that the sacrament of the union which we have with the body and blood of Christ, is presented in the sacred supper, to some to life, to others to perdition; but that the thing signified by the sacrament is only given to life to all who partake of it, and in no case to perdition. To preclude any cavil here, that the thing signified is not the body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from the body, he obviates such misrepresentations by the use of the contrasted epithets of visible and invisible; for the body of Christ cannot be comprehended under the former. Hence it follows, that unbelievers receive nothing but the visible symbol. And, for the more complete removal of every doubt, after having said that this bread requires the hunger of the inner man, he adds, “Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and many others who ate the manna, were acceptable to God. Why? Because they spiritually understood the visible food, they spiritually hungered, they spiritually ate, that they might be spiritually satisfied. For we also, in the present day, have received visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another.” A little after he says, “Therefore he who abides not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, spiritually neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he may carnally and visibly press the sign of the body and blood with his teeth.” Here, again, we find the visible sign opposed to the spiritual eating; which contradicts that error, that the invisible body of Christ is really eaten sacramentally, though it be not eaten spiritually. We are informed also that nothing is granted to the profane and impure, beyond the visible reception of the sign. Hence that well known observation of his, that the other disciples ate the bread which was the Lord, but that Judas merely ate the Lord’s bread; by which he clearly excludes unbelievers from the participation of the body and blood. And to the same purpose is what he says in another place: “Why do you wonder if the bread of Christ was given to Judas to enslave him to the devil, when you see, on the other hand, that the messenger of Satan was given to Paul to make him perfect in Christ?” [1310] He says, indeed, in another place, “That the sacramental bread was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself; [1311] and that they could not, therefore, be affirmed to have received nothing, because they had received amiss.” But his meaning is more fully explained in another passage. For professedly undertaking to describe how the body of Christ is eaten by the wicked and profligate, who confess the Christian faith with their lips while they deny it in their actions, and that in opposition to the opinion of some who supposed them to eat not only the sacramental symbol, but the substance itself, he says, “They must not be considered as eating the body of Christ, because they are not to be numbered among the members of Christ. For, to mention nothing else, they cannot, at the same time, be the members of Christ and the members of a harlot. And where the Lord himself says, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; [1312] he shows what it is to eat his body, not merely in a sacramental way, but in truth; for this is to dwell in Christ, that Christ may dwell in us. This is the same as if he had said, Whoever dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or think he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.” Let the readers consider the opposition here stated between eating merely in a sacramental way, and in truth, and there will remain no doubt respecting his meaning. He confirms the same with equal perspicuity in the following passage: “Prepare not your jaws, but your heart; it is for this that the supper is enjoined. Behold, we believe in Christ when we receive him by faith; in receiving him, we know what we think; we take a bit of bread, and our hearts are satisfied. We are fed, therefore, not by what we see, but by what we believe.” Here, also, what the wicked partake of he restricts to the visible sign, and pronounces that Christ is only received by faith. So, in another place, he expressly remarks that the good and the wicked partake of the elements in common, and excludes the latter from the true participation of the body of Christ. For, if they had enjoyed the substance itself, he would not have been entirely silent on that which would have strengthened his argument. In another place also, treating of the eating, and the benefit of it, he concludes thus: “Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to every one, if that which is visibly received in the sacrament, be, in the truth which is signified, spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.” Let those, therefore, who, in order to agree with Augustine, make unbelievers partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, exhibit to us the body of Christ in a visible manner, since he pronounces the whole truth of the sacrament to be spiritual. And the evident conclusion from his language is, that the sacramental eating is nothing more than eating the visible and external sign, when unbelief precludes the entrance of the substance. If the body of Christ could be eaten truly, without being eaten spiritually, what could be the meaning of Augustine, when he said, “You are not to eat this body which you see, and to drink the blood which will be shed by those who shall crucify me. I have appointed a sacrament for you; spiritually understood, it shall vivify you.” He certainly did not mean to deny that the same body which Christ offered in sacrifice is exhibited in the supper; but he designates the mode of participating in it—that though it has been received into celestial glory, it inspires us with life by the secret influence of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that he frequently speaks of the body of Christ as eaten by unbelievers, but he explains his meaning by adding that it is done sacramentally; and, in another place, he describes the spiritual eating as not consisting in a corporeal swallowing of the grace of God. And that my adversaries may not charge me with a wish to overwhelm them by an accumulation of passages, I would request them to inform me how they can evade that one declaration of his, where he says, “that the sacraments realize what they represent in the elect alone.” Surely they will not dare to deny that the bread represents the body of Christ. Hence it follows, that the reprobate are excluded from the participation of it. The following passage of Cyril also shows him to have been of the same opinion: “As when any one pours melted wax upon other wax, the whole will be mingled together into one mass, so it is necessary to any person’s reception of the body and blood of Christ, for him to be united with Christ, so that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ.” These words, I think, sufficiently prove, that those who eat the body of Christ merely in a sacramental way are deprived of the true and real participation of it, as the body itself cannot be separated from its efficacious power; and yet that this is no impeachment of the truth of the promises of God, who still continues to send us rain from heaven, though rocks and stones imbibe none of the moisture.

XXXV. This knowledge will also easily dissuade us from the carnal adoration which has been introduced into the sacrament by the perverse temerity of some, who reasoned in this manner: If the body be there, consequently the soul and the Divinity are there together with the body, for they cannot be separated from it; therefore Christ ought to be adored there. In the first place, what will they do, if we refuse to admit what they call concomitance? For, however they may urge the absurdity of separating the soul and the Divinity from the body, what man in his senses can be persuaded that the body of Christ is Christ? They consider it, indeed, as fully demonstrated by their arguments. But as Christ speaks distinctly of his body and blood, without specifying the nature of the presence, how can they establish what they wish by that which is itself doubtful? What then? If their consciences happen to be exercised with any peculiar affliction, will they not, with all their syllogisms, be confounded and overwhelmed; when they shall perceive themselves to be destitute of the certain word of God, which furnishes the only support for our souls when they are called to give an account, and without which they sink in a moment; when they shall reflect that the doctrine and examples of the apostles are against them, and that they are themselves the sole authors of their error? To such reflections will be added other sentiments of compunction, and those by no means inconsiderable. What! was it a thing of no consequence to adore God in this form, without any such thing being enjoined upon us? In a case where the true worship of God was concerned, ought that to have been so lightly undertaken, which not a word in the Scripture could be found to sanction? But if, with becoming humility, they had kept all their thoughts in subjection to the word of God, they would certainly have listened to what Christ said, “Take, eat, drink,” and would have obeyed this command, which enjoins the sacrament to be taken, not to be adored. Those who, as the Lord has commanded, receive it without adoration, are assured that they do not deviate from the Divine command; and such an assurance is the best satisfaction we can have in any thing in which we engage. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read, not that they prostrated themselves in adoration, but that, as they were sitting at the table, they took, and did eat. They have the practice of the apostolic Church, in which Luke states that the communion of believers consisted, not in adoration, but in “the breaking of bread.” [1313] They have the apostolic doctrine with which Paul instructed the Church of the Corinthians, accompanying it with this declaration: “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” [1314]

XXXVI. All these things lead the pious reader to consider how unsafe it is, in matters of such importance, to leave the pure word of God for the reveries of our own brains. The remarks which have already been made, ought to relieve our minds from every difficulty on this subject. For, in order to a due reception of Christ in the sacrament, it is necessary for pious souls to be elevated to heaven. If it be the design of the sacrament to assist the mind of man, which is otherwise weak, that it may be enabled to rise to discover the sublimity of spiritual mysteries,—those who confine themselves to the external sign, wander from the right way of seeking Christ. What, then, shall we deny it to be a superstitious worship, when men prostrate themselves before a piece of bread, to adore Christ in it? There is no doubt that the Council of Nice intended to guard against this evil, when it prohibited Christians from having their attention humbly fixed on the visible signs. And this was the only reason for that custom in the ancient Church, that, before the consecration, one of the deacons should, with an audible voice, admonish the people to have their hearts above. The Scripture itself, also, in addition to the particular account which it gives us of the ascension of Christ, by which he removed his corporeal presence from the view and society of men, in order to divest us of every carnal idea respecting him, whenever it mentions him, calls us to lift our minds upwards, and to seek for him seated “at the right hand of God.” [1315] According to this rule, it was our duty to adore him spiritually in the glory of heaven, rather than to invent such a dangerous kind of adoration, involving such gross and carnal conceptions of God. Wherefore, those who have invented the adoration of the sacrament, have not only dreamed it of themselves, without the sanction of the Scripture, in which not the least mention of it can be found, though, if it had been agreeable to God, it would not have been omitted; but even in direct opposition to the Scripture, forsaking the living God, they have fabricated a new deity, according to their own wayward inclinations. For what is idolatry, if it be not to worship the gifts instead of the giver himself? In which they have fallen into a double sin; for the honour has been taken away from God, to be transferred to the creature; and God himself has also been dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of his gift, when his holy sacrament has been made an execrable idol. Let us, on the contrary, lest we fall into the same danger, fix our ears, our eyes, our minds, and our tongues, entirely on the sacred doctrine of God. For that is the school of the Holy Spirit, the best of all teachers; whose instructions require nothing to be added from any other quarter, and omit nothing of which we ought not to be willing to remain in ignorance.

XXXVII. Now, as superstition, when it has once gone beyond the proper limits, proceeds in sinning without end, they have wandered still further; they have invented ceremonies altogether incompatible with the institution of the sacred supper, for the sole purpose of giving divine honours to the sign. When we remonstrate with them, they reply, that they pay this veneration to Christ. In the first place, if this were done in the supper, I would still say that that is the only legitimate adoration, which terminates not in the sign, but is directed to Christ enthroned in heaven. Now, what pretence have they for alleging that they worship Christ in the bread, when they have no promise of such a thing? They consecrate their host, as they call it, to carry it about in procession, to display it in pomp, and to exhibit it in a box, to be seen, adored, and invoked by the people. I inquire how they consider it to be rightly consecrated. They immediately adduce these words: “This is my body.” I object, that it was said at the same time. “Take and eat.” And I have sufficient reason for this; for when a promise is annexed to a precept, it is so included in the precept, that, separated from it, it ceases to be a promise at all. This shall be further elucidated by a similar example. The Lord gave a command, when he said, “Call upon me;” he added a promise, “I will deliver thee.” [1316] If any one should invoke Peter or Paul, and boast of this promise, will not his conduct be universally condemned? And wherein would this differ from the conduct of those who suppress the command to eat, and lay hold of the mutilated promise, “This is my body,” in order to misapply it to ceremonies foreign from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, then, that this promise is given to those who observe the commandment connected with it, but that they are entirely unsupported by the word of God, who transfer the sacrament to any other usage. We have already shown how the mystery of the supper promotes our faith before God. But as God here not only recalls to our remembrance the vast exuberance of his goodness, but delivers it, as it were, into our hands, as we have already declared, and excites us to acknowledge it, so he also admonishes us not to be ungrateful for such a profusion of beneficence, but, on the contrary, to magnify it with the praises it deserves, and to celebrate it with thanksgivings. Therefore, when he gave the institution of this sacrament to the apostles, he said to them, “This do in remembrance of me;” [1317] which Paul explains to be “showing the Lord’s death;” [1318] that is, publicly, and all together, as with one mouth, to confess that all our confidence of life and salvation rests on the death of the Lord; that we may glorify him by our confession, and by our example may exhort others to give him the same glory. Here, again, we see the object to which the sacrament tends, which is, to exercise us in a remembrance of the death of Christ. For the command which we have received, to “show the Lord’s death till he come” to judgment, is no other than to declare, by the confession of our lips, what our faith has acknowledged in the sacrament, that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use of the sacrament, which relates to external confession.

XXXVIII. In the third place, the Lord intended it to serve us as an exhortation, and no other could be better adapted to animate and influence us in the most powerful manner to purity and sanctity of life, as well as to charity, peace, and concord. For there the Lord communicates his body to us in such a manner that he becomes completely one with us, and we become one with him. Now, as he has only one body, of which he makes us all partakers, it follows, of necessity, that, by such participation, we also are all made one body; and this union is represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. For as it is composed of many grains, mixed together in such a manner that one cannot be separated or distinguished from another,—in the same manner we ought, likewise, to be connected and united together, by such an agreement of minds, as to admit of no dissension or division between us. This I prefer expressing in the language of Paul: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” [1319] We have derived considerable benefit from the sacrament, if this thought be impressed and engraven upon our minds, that it is impossible for us to wound, despise, reject, injure, or in any way to offend one of our brethren, but we, at the same time, wound, despise, reject, injure, and offend Christ in him; that we have no discord with our brethren without being, at the same time, at variance with Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving him in our brethren; that such care as we take of our own body, we ought to exercise the same care of our brethren, who are members of our body; that as no part of our body can be in any pain without every other part feeling correspondent sensations, so we ought not to suffer our brother to be afflicted with any calamity without our sympathizing in the same. Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so frequently calls this sacrament “the bond of charity.” For what more powerful stimulus could be employed to excite mutual charity among us, than when Christ, giving himself to us, not only invites us by his example mutually to devote ourselves to the promotion of one another’s welfare, but also, by making himself common to all, makes us all to be one with himself?

XXXIX. This furnishes the best confirmation of what I have stated before, that there is no true administration of the sacrament without the word. For whatever advantage accrues to us from the sacred supper requires the word; whether we are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in confession, or excited to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more preposterous, therefore, can be done with respect to the supper, than to convert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under the tyranny of the pope. For they have maintained that all the validity of the consecration depends on the intention of the priests, as if it had nothing to do with the people, to whom the mystery ought principally to be explained. They fell into this error, for want of observing that those promises on which the consecration rests, are not directed to the elements themselves, but to the persons who receive them. Christ does not address the bread, to command it to become his body; but enjoins his disciples to eat, and promises them the communication of his body and blood. Nor does Paul teach any other order than that the promises should be offered to believers, together with the bread and the cup. And this is the truth. We are not to imagine any magical incantation, or think it sufficient to have muttered over the words, as if they were heard by the elements; but we are to understand those words, by which the elements are consecrated, to be a lively preaching, which edifies the hearers, which penetrates their minds, which is deeply impressed upon their hearts, which exerts its efficacy in the accomplishment of that which it promises. These considerations clearly show that the reservation of the sacrament, insisted upon by many persons, for the purpose of extraordinary distribution to the sick, is perfectly useless. For either they will receive it without any recital of the institution of Christ, or the minister will accompany the sign with a true explication of the mystery. If nothing be said, it is an abuse and corruption. If the promises are repeated and the mystery declared, that those who are about to receive it may communicate with advantage, we have no reason to doubt that this is the true consecration. What end will be answered, then, by the former consecration, which, having been pronounced when the sick persons were not present, is of no avail to them? But it will be alleged, that those who adopt this practice have the example of the ancient Church in their favour. This I confess; but in a matter of such great importance, and in which any error must be highly dangerous, there is nothing so safe as to follow the truth itself.

XL. Now, as we perceive this sacred bread of the Lord’s supper to be spiritual food, grateful and delicious as well as salutary to the sincere worshippers of God, who, in the participation of it, experience Christ to be their life, whom it stimulates to thanksgiving, whom it exhorts to mutual charity among themselves; so, on the contrary, it is changed into a most noxious poison to all whose faith it does not nourish and confirm, and whom it does not excite to thanksgiving and charity. For as corporeal food, when it offends a diseased stomach, becoming itself corrupted, is found rather noxious than nutritious, so this spiritual food, when it meets with a soul polluted by iniquity, only precipitates it into a more dreadful ruin; not, indeed, from any fault in the food, but because “unto them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure,” [1320] however it may be otherwise sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” [1321] Persons of this description, who, without one particle of faith, or the least feeling of charity, intrude themselves, like so many swine, to seize the supper of the Lord, have no discernment of the Lord’s body. For, as they do not believe that body to be their life, they treat it with the utmost dishonour they are capable of casting upon it, robbing it of its dignity, and receiving it in such a manner as to pollute and profane it. And as, amidst their dissension and alienation from their brethren, they presume to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ’s body with their discords, it is not owing to them that the body of Christ is not divided, and every member severed from the rest. Therefore they are justly represented as guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which they so shamefully pollute with their sacrilegious impiety. By this unworthy eating they receive their own condemnation. For though they have no faith fixed on Christ, yet in their reception of the sacrament they profess that there is no salvation for them any where except in him, and renounce every other dependence. Wherefore they are their own accusers; they give testimony against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. Moreover, while divided and distracted from their brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they have no part in Christ, yet they testify that the only way of salvation is to participate of Christ, and to be united to him. For this reason, Paul gave the following injunction: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;” [1322] by which, I apprehend, he meant that every man should retire into himself, and consider whether, with sincere confidence of heart, he relies on the salvation procured by Christ; whether he acknowledges it by the confession of his mouth; whether he aspires after an imitation of Christ in the pursuit of integrity and holiness; whether, after the example of Christ, he is ready to devote himself to his brethren, and to communicate himself to them with whom he has a common interest in Christ; whether, as he himself is acknowledged by Christ, he in like manner considers all his brethren as members of his body; whether he desires to cherish, preserve, and assist them as his own members. Not that these duties of faith and charity can now be perfect in us; but because this is the point which we ought to feel the most ardent desires and exert the most strenuous efforts to attain, that our faith may be more and more increased, and our charity strengthened from day to day.

XLI. In general, when they have intended to prepare persons for this worthy participation of the sacrament, they have dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and yet have not mentioned a single thing which the case required. They have said that those “eat worthily,” who are in a state of grace. To be in a state of grace, they have explained to consist in being pure and cleansed from all sin—a doctrine which would exclude all the men who now live, or ever have lived upon earth, from the benefit of this sacrament. For if it be necessary for us to derive our worthiness from ourselves, we are undone; nothing awaits us but ruin, confusion, and despair. Though we strive with all our powers, we shall gain nothing, at last, but a discovery that we are most unworthy, after having laboured to the utmost to find some worthiness. To heal this wound, they have contrived a method of attaining worthiness; which is, that having, as far as we can, examined our consciences, and required from ourselves an account of all our actions, we should purge ourselves from our unworthiness by contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but what kind of purgation this is, we have already stated in a place more suitable to the discussion of it. As far as relates to the present subject, I observe that these consolations are too poor and unsubstantial for consciences disturbed, distressed, dejected, and overwhelmed with a sense of their sins. For if the Lord, by his express interdiction, admits none to a participation of the supper, but those who are righteous and innocent, it requires no little care in any individual to attain an assurance of his possession of that righteousness, which he finds to be required by God. Now, what ground of assurance have we, that God is satisfied with persons who have done what they could? And even if this were the case, when shall any man be found who can venture to declare that he has done all that he could? Thus, while no certain assurance of our worthiness can be obtained, the entrance to the sacrament will always remain closed by that dreadful interdiction, which denounces that “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”

XLII. Now, it is easy to judge what kind of doctrine this is which prevails in the Papacy, and from what author it has proceeded; which by its extreme austerity deprives and robs miserable sinners, who are already afflicted with trepidation and sorrow, of the consolation of this sacrament, in which all the comforts of the gospel were set before them. It was certainly impossible for the devil to take a more compendious method of ruining men, than by infatuating them in such a manner as to deprive them of all taste and relish for such food which their heavenly and most merciful Father had intended for their nourishment. That we may not precipitate ourselves into this abyss, therefore, let us remember that this sacred banquet is medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, alms to the poor; but that it would confer no advantage on the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found. For as Christ is given to us in it for food, we understand, that without him we pine, starve, and faint, as the body loses its vigour from want of sustenance. Moreover, as he is given to us for life, we understand that without him we are utterly dead in ourselves. Wherefore the best and only worthiness that we can present to God, is to offer him our vileness and unworthiness, that he may make us worthy of his mercy; to despair in ourselves, that we may find consolation in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be exalted by him; to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; likewise to aspire to that unity which he enjoins upon us in his supper; and as he makes us all to be one in himself, so it should be our desire that we may all have one mind, one heart, and one tongue. If we have these things well considered and digested in our minds, though we may be disturbed, we shall never be subverted by such reflections as this: Needy and destitute of every good, defiled with the pollution of sin, and half dead, how could we worthily eat the Lord’s body? We shall rather consider, that we come as paupers to the liberal Benefactor, as patients to the Physician, as sinners to the Author of righteousness, as persons dead to the fountain of life; that the worthiness which is required by God consists principally in faith, which attributes every thing to Christ, and places no dependence on ourselves, and, secondly, in charity, even that charity which it is enough for us to present to God in an imperfect state, that he may increase and improve it; for we cannot produce it in a state of perfection. Others, who have agreed with us that the worthiness which is enjoined consists in faith and charity, have nevertheless fallen into a considerable error respecting the degree of that worthiness, requiring a perfection of faith to which nothing can ever approach, and a charity equal to that which Christ has manifested toward us. But by this requisition they exclude all men from access to this sacred supper, as much as the persons to whom we adverted before. For if their opinion were admitted, no person could receive it, but unworthily; since all, without a single exception, would be convinced of their imperfection. And surely it must betray extreme ignorance, not to say stupidity, to require in the reception of the sacrament, that perfection which would render the sacrament unnecessary and useless; for it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the imperfect and feeble, to awaken, excite, stimulate, and exercise their graces of faith and charity, and to correct the defects of both.

XLIII. With respect to the external ceremonial, whether believers take the bread in their hands or not; whether they divide it between them, or every individual eat that which is given to him; whether they return the cup into the hand of the deacon, or deliver it to the person who is next; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be red or white; is not of the least importance. These things are indifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain, however, that the custom of the ancient Church was, that every one should take the bread into his hand. And Christ said “Divide it among yourselves.” [1323] History informs us, that leavened and common bread was used before the time of Alexander, bishop of Rome, who was the first advocate for unleavened bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it was to dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle, rather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal to all who feel the least concern for piety, whether they do not clearly perceive, how much more conspicuously the glory of God appears in this use of the sacrament, and how much greater abundance of spiritual consolation and delight believers enjoy in it, than in those insignificant and theatrical fooleries which only tend to deceive the minds of the gazing multitude. This they call keeping the people in religion, when they lead them into any thing they please, under the stupefaction and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to defend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally aware how early chrism and exorcism were used in baptism, and how soon after the age of the apostles, corruptions were introduced into the Lord’s supper; but this is the confidence of human presumption, which can never restrain itself from trifling with the mysteries of God. But let us remember, that God holds the obedience of his word in such high estimation, that it is the standard by which he appoints us to judge even his angels and the whole world. Now, leaving all this mass of ceremonies, let us remark, that the Lord’s supper might be most properly administered, if it were set before the Church very frequently, and at least once in every week in the following manner: The service should commence with public prayer; in the next place, a sermon should be delivered; then, the bread and wine being placed upon the table, the minister should recite the institution of the supper, should declare the promises which are left to us in it, and, at the same time, should excommunicate all those who are excluded from it by the prohibition of the Lord; after this, prayer should be offered, that with the same benignity with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would also teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of heart, and that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would, in his mercy, make us worthy of such a feast. Then either some psalms should be sung, or a portion of Scripture should be read, and believers, in a becoming order, should participate of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking the bread and distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people; after the conclusion of the supper, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a deportment worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgivings should be rendered, and praises sung, to God; and to close the whole, the Church should be dismissed in peace.

XLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting the sacrament, abundantly show that it was not instituted for the purpose of being received once in a year, and that in a careless and formal manner, as is now the general practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated by all Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of Christ; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen their faith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to confess and celebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in their hearts, and promote the mutual exercise of that charity, the bond of which they would see in the unity of the body of Christ. For whenever we communicate in the symbol of the Lord’s body, it is like the interchange of a mutual pledge, by which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he may injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he can assist him, when necessity requires and opportunity admits. That such was the practice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned by Luke, when he says that believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” [1324] The invariable custom, therefore, was, that no assembly of the Church should be held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the Lord’s supper administered, and alms given. That this was the order established among the Corinthians, may be fairly concluded from the Epistles of Paul; and it is well known to have been followed for many ages after. For hence those ancient canons, which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus, “that, after the consecration is finished, all shall communicate, on pain of expulsion from the Church.” And the ancient canons which are ascribed to the apostles, say, “that those who continue not to the end, and receive not the sacrament, ought to be corrected as disturbers of the Church.” In the Council of Antioch, also, it was decreed, that those who enter into the Church, hear the sermon, and retire from the communion, be excluded from the Church till they shall have corrected this fault. And though in the first Council of Toledo, this decree was either mitigated, or at least enacted in a milder form, yet there also it was ordained, that those who shall be found never to communicate after having heard the sermon, be admonished; and that, if they obey not the first admonition, they be excommunicated.

XLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy fathers with a view to retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration of the communion, which had been transmitted by the apostles themselves, and which they perceived to be highly beneficial to believers, but by negligence to be gradually falling into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting the age in which he lived, when he says, “The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body of our Lord, is prepared on the table of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at stated intervals of time; and is thence received by some to life, by others to destruction.” And in his first epistle to Januarius: “Some receive the body and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive them on certain days; in some Churches, not a day passes without the administration of the sacrament; in others, it is administered only on Saturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday.” But the people in general, being, as we have observed, sometimes too remiss, the holy fathers stimulated them with severe reproofs, that they might not appear to connive at such negligence. Of this we have an example in a homily of Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians: “To him who dishonoured the feast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down? but, How camest thou in hither? [1325] Whoever is present here, and is not a partaker of the mysteries, is wicked and impudent. I appeal to you, if any one be invited to a feast, and come, wash his hands, sit down, and apparently make every preparation for partaking of it, and after all taste nothing,—will he not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who has provided it? So you, who appear among them who, by prayer prepare themselves to receive the sacred food, who by the very circumstance of not departing, confess yourself to be one of their number, and after all do not participate with them, would it not have been better for you not to have made your appearance among them? You will tell me you are unworthy. Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which is a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery.”

XLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the practice which in their time had already been adopted in the Eastern Churches, for the people to attend as spectators of the celebration of the sacrament, and not to partake of it. And that custom, which enjoins believers to communicate only once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the devil, whoever were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said that Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree; which there is not the least reason for believing to have been such as is now represented. It is probable that the regulation which he made was not ill calculated for the interest of the Church under the circumstances of those times. For there is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set before the faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there any more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate; but as it would scarcely ever happen that all could communicate together, and it was necessary that those who were mixed with unbelievers and idolaters, should testify their faith by some external sign,—that holy man, for the sake of order and discipline, appointed that day for all the Christians at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a participation of the Lord’s supper. The regulation of Zepherinus was good in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors, when they made a certain law that there should be one communion in a year; the consequence of which has been, that almost all men, when they have communicated once, resign themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had fairly excused themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different practice ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week the table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of Christians, and the promises to have been declared for their spiritual nourishment; no person ought to have been compelled to partake, but all ought to have been exhorted and stimulated, and those who were negligent, to have been reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would have assembled in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for complaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced this custom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders men slothful and careless all the rest of the time. We see that this abuse had already begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom, but we see at the same time how greatly it displeased him. For in the place which I have just quoted, he severely complains of a great inequality in this matter, that oftentimes people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of the year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would come at Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims, “O custom! O presumption! In vain, then, is the daily oblation; in vain do we stand at the altar. There is no one to partake with us.” So far is such a practice from being sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom.

XLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation, which has robbed or deprived the principal part of the people of God of one half of the sacred supper; I mean the symbol of the blood, which has been interdicted to the laity and the profane,—for by these titles they distinguish the Lord’s heritage,—and has become the peculiar privilege of the few who have received ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The ordinance of the eternal God is, “Drink ye all of it;” which man has repealed and abrogated by a new and contrary law, ordaining that all shall not drink of it. And these legislators, that they may not appear to resist their God without reason, plead the dangers which might result if this sacred cup were indiscriminately presented to all; as though those dangers had not been foreseen and considered by the eternal wisdom of God. In the next place, they argue with great subtlety, that one is sufficient for both. For, if it be the body, they say, it is the whole of Christ, who cannot now be separated from his body. The body, therefore, contains the blood. See how human reason is at variance with God, when it has once been left to its own vagaries. Exhibiting the bread, our Lord says, “This is my body;” exhibiting the cup, he says, “This is my blood.” The audacity of human reason contradicts this, and affirms that the bread is the blood, and that the wine is the body; as if the Lord had distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and by signs, without any cause, and as if it had ever been heard that the body or blood of Christ was called God and man. Certainly, if he had intended to designate his whole person, he might have said, “It is I,” as the Scripture tells us he did on other occasions; and not, “This is my body; this is my blood.” But, with a view to aid the weakness of our faith, he exhibits the bread and the cup separately, to teach us that he is sufficient for drink as well as for food. Now, let one of these parts be taken away, and we shall find only half of our nourishment in him. Though it were true, then, as they pretend, that the blood is in the bread, and the body in the cup, yet they defraud the souls of believers of that confirmation which Christ has delivered as necessary for them. Therefore, leaving their subtleties, let us hold fast the benefit which arises from the double pledge which Christ has ordained.

XLVIII. I am aware of the cavils advanced on this subject by the ministers of Satan, who are accustomed to treat the Scripture with contempt. In the first place, they plead, that a simple act affords no sufficient ground from which to deduce a rule of perpetual obligation on the observance of the Church. But it is false to call it a simple act; for Christ not only gave the cup to his apostles, but also commanded them to do the same in time to come. For it is the language of command, “Drink ye all of it.” And Paul mentions its having been practised in such a way as fully implies its being a positive ordinance. The second subterfuge is, that Christ admitted none but the apostles to a participation of this supper, whom he had already chosen and admitted into the order of sacrificing priests. But I would wish them to give me answers to five questions, from which they will not be able to escape, but their misrepresentations will be easily refuted. First; By what oracle have they obtained this solution, so inconsistent with the word of God? The Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus; but it does not obscure the dignity of Christ so as to call them sacrificing priests—a name which I shall notice in the proper place. Though he then gave the sacrament to the twelve, yet he commanded that they should do the same; that is, that they should distribute it among them in a similar manner. Secondly; why, in that purer period, for almost a thousand years after the apostles, were all, without exception, admitted to the participation of both symbols? Was the ancient Church ignorant what guests Christ had admitted to his supper? Any hesitation or evasion would betray the most consummate impudence. Ecclesiastical histories and works of the fathers are still extant, which furnish clear testimonies of this fact. Tertullian says, “The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God.” Ambrose said to Theodosius, “With such hands how will you receive the sacred body of the Lord? With what audacity will you drink his sacred blood?” Jerome says, “The priests consecrate the eucharist and distribute the Lord’s blood to the people.” Chrysostom says, “It is not as it was under the ancient law, when the priest ate one part, and the people another; but to all is presented one body and one cup. Every thing in the eucharist is common to the priest and to the people.” And the same is attested in various places by Augustine.

XLIX. But why do I dispute about a thing that is so evident? Let any one read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and he will find them abound with such testimonies. Nor did this custom fall into disuse while a particle of purity remained in the Church. Gregory, who may be justly called the last bishop of Rome, shows that it was observed in his time. He says, “You have now learned what the blood of the Lamb is, not by hearing, but by drinking. His blood is drunk by the faithful.” And it even continued for four hundred years after his death, notwithstanding the universal degeneracy which had taken place. Nor was it considered merely as a custom, but as an inviolable law. For the Divine institution was then reverenced, and no doubt was entertained of the criminality of separating things which the Lord had united. For Gelasius, bishop of Rome, speaks in the following manner: “We have understood that some, only receiving the Lord’s body, abstain from the cup; who, as they appear to be enslaved by an unaccountable superstition, should, without doubt, either receive the sacrament entire, or entirely abstain from it. For no division of this mystery can be made without great sacrilege.” Attention was paid to those reasons of Cyprian, which surely ought to be sufficient to influence a Christian mind. He says, “How do we teach or stimulate them to shed their blood in the confession of Christ, if we refuse his blood to them who are about to engage in the conflict? Or how do we prepare them for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them, by the right of communion, to drink the cup of the Lord in the Church?” The canonists restrict the decree of Gelasius to the priests, but this is too puerile a cavil to need any refutation.

L. Thirdly; Why did Christ, when he presented the bread, simply say, “Take, eat;” but when he presented the cup, “Drink ye all of it;” as if he expressly intended to guard against the subtlety of Satan? Fourthly; If, as our adversaries pretend, our Lord admitted to his supper none but sacrificing priests, what man can be found so presumptuous as to invite to a participation of it strangers whom the Lord has excluded? and to a participation of that gift, over which they could have no power, without any command from him who alone could give it? And with what confidence do they now take upon them to distribute to the people the symbol of the body of Christ, if they have neither the command nor example of the Lord? Fifthly; Did Paul affirm what was false, when he said to the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you?” [1326] For he afterwards declares what he had delivered, which was, that all, without any distinction, should communicate in both symbols. If Paul had “received of the Lord,” that all were to be admitted without any distinction, let them consider from whom they have received, who exclude almost all the people of God; for they cannot now pretend their doctrine to have originated from God, with whom is “not yea and nay.” [1327] And yet they dare to shelter such abominations under the name of the Church, and to defend them under that pretext; as if the Church could consist of those antichrists, who so easily trample under foot, mutilate, and abolish the doctrine and institutions of Christ; or as if the apostolic Church, in which true religion displayed all its influence, were not the true Church.