加爾文基督教要義(83)卷四第十七章 論聖餐及其所賜恩惠

第十七章 論聖餐及其所賜恩惠
　　一至四、聖餐所表的是什麼——從略。
　　五至七、我們當怎樣領受聖餐——從略。
　　八、首先，我們從聖經知道，基督乃是太初那從父出來賜生命之道，他是生命之本源，萬物都是從他而來。所以，約翰在一處稱他為「生命之道」（約壹1： 1），在另一處又說：「生命在他裡頭」（約1：4），這就表明他從太初就將他的能力廣被一切被造之物，使之賦有生命和氣息。然而這位使徒立刻加上說，這生命是只在神的兒子取了肉身，能為眼所見，為手所摸的時候，才顯現出來。在那時之前神雖以他的能力廣被萬物，然而，人既因罪與神隔絕，喪失了生命，處處看見死亡臨頭，所以，他為要恢復永生之望，就必須再與道相交。因為倘若我們聽到神的道具有充分的生命，但我們已與他距離無限遙遠，舉目所見到的，處處無非是死亡，那麼，我們所能得的希望是如何渺小呢？但那為生命泉源之主既取了肉身，他就不再隱藏，與我們遠離，而是把自己明顯表明出來，讓我們領受。他也使他所取的肉體成為賜生命給我們的工具，叫我們領受，就可以被滋養得永生。他說：「我是從天上降下來生命的糧，人若吃這糧，就必永遠活著。我所要賜的糧，就是我的肉，為世人之生命所賜的」（約6：51）。在這些話里，他表明他不只是生命，不只是從天降下給我們永生的道，而且他藉降世將能力灌輸於他所取的肉體中，好從他的肉體將生命灌輸給我們。所以他接著又宣布說：「我的肉真是可吃的，我的血真是可喝的」（約6：55）。藉著這樣的飲食，信徒得以養活到永生。我們於此得著特別的安慰，因為我們在我們的肉體中找著生命。因為這樣我們不僅容易接近生命，而且發現有生命向我們敞開，提供給我們去接受。我們只須敞開我們的心去接受，就可以得著。
　　九、雖然賜生命給我們的能力並非是基督肉體本來的特性——就這肉體原來的情況說，它也是為死所支配的，而現在它活著不死，並不是它所固有的——然而真可稱它為生命之源，因為它具有完全的生命，能夠灌輸給我們。我同意區利羅用這種意義來了解基督的話：「因為父怎樣在自己有生命，就賜給他兒子也照樣在自己有生命」 （約5：26）。因為在這經文中他不是指太初與父所同具的特性，乃是指他在肉身顯現時所賦有的恩賜；所以他表明完全的生命住在他的人性中，叫凡分享他血和肉的，就分享生命。正如水有時供飲，有時供取，有時供灌溉，然而它能供給這樣豐富的用途，並不是從它本身，而是從那永不止息的源頭；照樣基督的肉體像一個豐富不竭的源頭，接受從神流出來的生命，而灌輸給我們。誰不知道，分享基督的血肉，乃是凡想得永生的人所必須行的呢？聖保羅的話就含著這個意思，他說，教會是基督的身體，滿有基督（弗1：23）；他是「元首，全身都靠他聯絡得合式，百節各按各職，照著各體的功用，彼此相助，便叫身體漸漸增長」（弗4：15，16）；我們的身體是「基督的肢體」（林前6：15）；除非基督與我們身靈完全聯合，這些事就不能產生。但是使徒保羅用了一種更明顯的話，來表明那使我們與基督的肉體相連的最親密交往，說：「我們是他身上的肢體，就是他的骨，他的肉」（弗5：30）。最後，他宣布這事是無法形容的，說：「這是極大的奧秘」（弗5：32）。所以，若否認信徒和主的體血相通——這種相通使徒保羅認為如此偉大，他只有讚美而無法形容—— 就不免是愚不可及了。
　　十、我們的結論乃是，我們的靈魂靠著基督的肉和血存活，正如我們的肉體靠著麵包和酒存活一樣。因為我們的靈在基督里若未得糧食，這表記就不適當了；除非基督真和我們聯成一體，叫我們吃他的肉，喝他的血，而有新生命，我們就不會在基督里得糧食。基督的肉離我們如此遙遠，求其臨到我們，作為我們的糧食，雖似不可信，可是，我們當記得，聖靈的奧秘能力是如何超越人的官能，若以人的標準來衡量祂的無限偉大，乃是何等愚笨。所以，我們要用信心，來領受我們所不能了解的，就是聖靈誠然將那為空間所隔絕的事物聯絡了起來。基督在聖餐里向我們指證，他叫我們分享他的血和肉，就將他的生命灌輸給我們，好像他是實在滲透我們的四肢百體；而這並非是靠陳列虛空無效的表記，而是靠聖靈所運行的能力，以成就他所應許的。他將聖餐所表明的給凡來參加這屬靈筵席的人，然而只有用真信心和感謝的心來接受這至大恩惠的信徒，才能領受得益。因為這個原因，使徒保羅說：「我們所祝福的杯，豈不是同領基督的血么？我們所擘開的餅，豈不是同領基督的身體么？」（林前10：16），人也沒有理由反對說，這只是一種比譬的說法，藉以將所表之事的名稱歸於表記。我固然承認，所擘的餅乃是象徵，而非主的身體；然而我們從象徵可以推到主的身體，因為除非人稱上帝為騙子，就不能說神所設立的，乃是一虛空的表記。所以，倘若主真以擘餅來表明分享他的身體，我們就不應懷疑，他是真將身體賜給我們了。每逢見到主所立的表記時，就當衷心信服，表記有其所表的同來。因為主若不是向我們印證，我們真是分享他的身體，那麼他把那象徵放到我們的手中，有什麼目的呢？倘若將這有形的表記賜予我們，是為印證那無形之身體的賜予，我們就當確信，我們接受主的身體之象徵，便是真接受主的身體。
　　十一、所以，我照教會一向所領受的，並與今日凡持正當意見的人所教訓的認為聖餐的神聖奧秘包含兩部分：第一部分是擺在我們眼前的有形表記，這表記是按照我們軟弱的能力，向我們表明眼所不能見的事。第二部分是屬靈的真理，這真理同時是由象徵表明出來。我若要表達這真理的通俗觀點，我慣常是將它所包含的三個特點說明出來：即一是意義，二是以意義為根據的實體，三是由意義及實體所產生的功效或影響。意義是在於那與表記相交織的應許。所謂實體，即是基督以及他的死和復活。所謂功效，即是指救贖，稱義，成聖，永生，以及基督所賜予我們的其他恩惠。雖然這一切的事都與信心相連，然而我不讓人有吹毛求疵的餘地，以為當我說，用信心領受基督，便是說，只靠理智和想象就可以領受基督，因為主應許將他自己向我們表現出來，並不只是使我們可以默想和認識他就夠了，而是使我們可以真與他相交。其實我不知道，人如何能夠堅信他自己因基督的十字架而有救贖和稱義，因基督的死而有生命，除非他是首先與基督真正相交；因為若是基督不先把他自己賜予我們，這些福氣是總不會賜給我們的。所以我說，餅和酒所表明的聖餐奧秘向我們真顯明基督，即顯明他的肉和血；他在肉體中完全順服父，使我們稱義。這種顯明所有的目的，第一是叫我們和基督聯合成為一體，第二是我們既分享他的本體，便從領受他的各種福分上覺得他的力量。
　　十二、我現在要進而討論那些由迷信所加於聖餐的誇張說法。因為撒但在此發揮了他驚人的狡計，將人的思想從天引開去，叫他們陷入荒謬的錯誤中，使他們相信基督是附在聖餅上面。第一，我們必須小心，不要如羅馬教所捏造的，夢想基督的身體臨在聖餐中，好像基督的肉體是擺在那裡，由手摩著，由齒咬嚼，由喉吞咽一般。這正是教皇尼古拉（Nicolas）指令伯仁加爾（Berengarius）表示悔改所宣布的。這種說法是如此荒唐，以致它的註解人叫道，讀者若不極其謹慎小心，他將比伯仁加爾陷入更壞的異端中；倫巴都雖然竭力使這謬說不被指責為荒唐，然而他卻寧可另採取一種意見。因為，毫無疑問，基督的肉身按照人肉體不可改變的情形來說，是有限的，並且它一旦被接入天上，就留在那裡，直到他再來審判世界，所以我們認為，把它從天上拿下來，附之於這些必敗壞的餅酒中，或是忖想它到處臨在，乃是完全不合理的。我們為求分享他的本體，也不需要這種作法，因為主藉著他的靈，叫我們在身，心，靈上和他聯合。所以，這聯合的結乃是基督的靈，這靈使我們與基督結合，而且宛如是將基督自己及其所有灌輸給我們的媒介。因為，倘若我們看到太陽放射陽光和實質，來使地上的萬物化育，滋長，成熟，那麼，基督之靈的放射為何不能同樣把他的血肉灌輸給我們呢？所以，聖經提到我們分享基督，就將這一切的能力歸之於聖靈。我們只引一處經文就夠了。在羅馬書八章上，保羅說明基督是藉著聖靈住在我們心裡（羅8：9，11）。他這樣說，並不破壞我們現在所討論對主的血肉領受的道理，而是教訓我們，只從聖靈才能得著基督和他的一切恩惠，並有他住在我們心裡。
　　十三、經院學者對於這種鄙野的不敬虔感到震驚，乃用一種較適中的話來說，然而他們不過是以同樣的愚妄和更大的狡計來自娛。他們承認，基督不是具體地包含在餅和酒中；但是他們後來又發明一種說法，自己既不懂得，也不能向別人說明，那便是說，基督的身體是可以在麵包的形式中找到的。當他們說麵包的本質，變成了基督的身體，他們豈不是將他的實體附著於他們認為麵包所僅存的白色上嗎？但他們說，基督是在聖餐中，同時也在天上，其臨在不過是寄居的臨在而已。但是不管他們用什麼話來文飾他們的意見，終歸是說，由於神甫的祝聖，以前的麵包就變成了基督的身體，所以基督的實體乃藏於麵包的外形下。這意思他們明白表達，而不以為恥，因為倫巴都說：「基督那本來可得以看見的身體，於祝聖后，就藏匿在麵包的形式下。」這樣，作表象的餅無非是一個罩子，使肉體不為人所看見而已。我們也不用再猜測，來發現這些話中設有什麼陷井，因有事實清楚表明了。在教皇的教會中，不只是一般人而且是重要人物，幾百年來一直到今日，都陷於深沉的迷信中。真信仰是與基督聯結相交的惟一媒介，但很少是他們所關心的，他們只要有基督有形肉體的臨在就夠了，而這種說法乃是他們的虛構，毫無神的話為根據。可見這種狡計的結果乃是把餅當作神看待。
　　十四、從此化質說就應運產生了。他們現在為這一說爭辯，較比為他們的其他信仰爭辯得更為熱烈。那首先捏造肉體臨在的人，在說明基督的身體如何能與餅的本質混合時，就不能不立刻為許多荒唐所困。所以他們就必須訴諸一種虛構，認為餅變成了基督的身體，並不是說，他的身體成了餅，而是說，基督將餅的本質消滅，而把自己藏於餅的形體下。真令人驚奇，他們竟墜入這種無知中，甚至愚味中，發表這種與聖經和初期教會的教訓直接相反的荒唐見解。誠然我承認，有些古代作者用過 「改變」一辭，命意並不是廢掉表記的本質，乃是表明供聖餐用的餅，是與普通的餅不同，與未祝聖之前的餅不同。他們都不斷地明白宣布，聖餐包括屬世的和屬靈的兩部分；而屬世的部分，他們毫不躊躇地說，就是餅與酒。不管羅馬教徒如何作偽，他們屢次假古人的權威來反對神明顯的道，這對他們的這教義並無補助；而且這種教義乃是比較近代的捏造，因為在教義純正的時代，未曾有過這種說法，即令在純正教義已經腐化的時代，也沒有這種說法。古代作者中沒有一個不是明白承認，祝聖了的聖餐象徵物，仍是餅與酒；雖然照我所曾提到的，他們有時用各種稱呼來稱呼它們，以頌揚它們的莊嚴。因為當他們說，祝聖便產生了一種奧秘的改變，與原來的餅和酒不同了，我已經提到他們的意思並不是說，原來的餅酒被消滅了，乃是說，再不以普通養活身體的食物來看待它們，因為在餅酒中有養活靈魂的屬靈飲食賜下。在這一點上，我們也同意。但是，我們的對敵說，既是改變，便是一樣東西必定變為另一樣東西。倘若他們是指一物與前不同而言，我就同意他們。倘若他們要想用此來維持他們的捏造，那麼，他們得告訴我，他們以為在洗禮中有什麼改變呢？因為教父們也提到洗禮中的奇妙改變，說，從必朽的物中，對心靈發出一種屬靈的潔凈，然而他們當中沒有一個人否認，水的本質仍繼續存留。但是他們又說，至於設立洗禮並沒有像在設立聖餐時所用的話：「這是我的身體」；好像問題是關於這句話的意義——其實那意義是很明顯的——而不是關於改變的本身，這改變在聖餐中的，其實不應比在洗禮中的為多。因此，讓他們止息他們的狡辯吧，那隻足以暴露他們的荒唐。誠然，倘若外在的表記不是其所代表的真理的活潑形像，它的意義就不清楚了。藉著外在的表記，基督是要宣布他的肉即是糧食。倘若他擺在我們面前的，只是餅的幻影，而不是真餅，那麼，那裡有那應該領我們從看得見的象徵到看不見的實體的類比呢？因為，若要使象徵與實體完全相符，那麼意義就不外乎是吃基督幻影的肉了。例如在洗禮中，若是那作象徵的水只是欺騙我們眼目的，我們就沒有得以洗凈的憑據了；而這種欺騙人的虛幻將成為苦痛不安的源頭。所以，除非屬世的表記在意義上與屬天的實體符合，聖禮的本性就被破壞了；這樣，除非基督的真體是為真餅所代表，我們就喪失了這奧秘的真理。我再重複說，既然聖餐無非是用有形的物來證明基督是「生命的糧，從天上降下來」（約6：35，50）的應許，所以它就必用看得見物質的餅，來代表那屬靈的事；不然，我們就會毀壞神在此用以扶助我們軟弱的工具。保羅說：「我們雖多，仍是一個餅，一個身體，因為我們都是分受這一個餅」（林前10：17），倘若餅只是幻影，而沒有實在，那麼保羅憑什麼理由如此說呢？
　　十五、他們若不是預先為一種錯誤之見所惑，以為基督的肉體乃是藏在餅中，由人納入口內，吞入喉中，就不會如此可恥地為撒但的虛假所騙。這種愚見乃是起因於他們把祝聖當作一種魔術的咒語。他們卻不知餅只對那些領受主的話的人，才成為聖禮；正如洗禮的水本身並沒有改變，只因為它和主的應許連在一起，才對我們不再是以前的水了。這一點可以用一個類似的聖禮來加以說明。從曠野磐石中流出來的水，對列祖，正如聖餐中的酒對我們一樣，乃是一個表記；因為保羅說：「他們也都喝了一樣的靈水」（林前10：4）。但是這水也給他們的牛羊喝。因此我們容易推論到，屬世的東西若用之於屬靈的事上，除了對人作為應許的印證外，並沒有別的改變。此外，既然神的計劃，如我所重複提到的，是用合式的工具來把我們提高到他那裡，那麼，那些邀請我們歸向基督，卻無形中將他掩藏於餅里的人，就邪惡地破壞了這計劃。人的心意實在不能超越無限的空間距離，參透高天上的基督。凡自然拒絕給他們的，他們就企圖用一種更壞的方法來補救，以求使他們還在世的時候，就想不須登天，而能接近基督。因此他們不得不採用化質說。在伯爾納（Bernard）的時代，雖然採取了一種粗陋的說法，然而尚沒有化質說；在伯氏以前各時代，大家口裡所用的比方乃是說，在聖餐中基督的血和肉是屬靈地與餅酒聯合起來。至於他們在名稱上的爭辯，他們自己雖以為很敏銳，然而對聖餐禮本身的討論卻毫無補益。例如他們說，摩西的杖雖然變為一條蛇，仍然保留原來的名稱，而稱為杖（出4：2-4，7： 10，12）。所以他們認為，餅雖變為另一實體，然而也仍然可照著它有形的外表來稱呼，而並沒有什麼不適當的地方。但是在那偉大的神跡和他們所虛構而無人見過的幻像中間，他們能發現什麼類似或關連呢？魔術家能夠行巫術，所以埃及人相信他們具有神能，能改變自然的秩序。摩西與他們敵對，將他們的魔術打敗，表明神的無敵權能是與他同在。因為他的一根杖將其他一切的杖都吞了。但這只是一個眼所能見的變幻，與我們現在的論點無關，正如我們已經所說過的；而且他的杖也立刻可見地回復了原形。再者我們不知道，杖實際上是否暫時改變了實質。我們又要注意到對魔術家的杖所說的，因為魔西說：「亞倫的杖吞了他們的杖。」他不稱它們為蛇，恐怕人誤會他是說到一種並未曾有過的實質變化；因為那些騙子並未作什麼，不過眩惑觀眾的眼目而已。這與下面的話：「我們所擘開的餅」（林前 10：16）；「你們每逢吃這餅」（林前11：26）；「彼此擘餅」（徒2：42），有什麼類似呢？觀眾的眼目無疑是為魔術家的咒語所欺騙。關於摩西這方面，就不那麼確定，神藉摩西的手將杖變為蛇，以後再將蛇變為杖，並不較難於使天使具有形的身體下降，以後再使他們解除身體。倘若聖餐的性質是與此相類似的，我們的對敵也許可為他們的說法增色不少。所以，不變的原則乃是，在聖餐禮中，基督的肉並未真應許給我們作為食物，除非那象徵物真是變了肉。他們錯上加錯，謬解耶利米的話，來證明他們的化變說，就是提起來，也是可恥的。先知耶利米抱怨害他的人，把木放在他的餅中（耶11：19按照武加大和七十士譯本），表明他仇敵的殘酷使他吃餅味同嚼木；正如大衛用同樣的比方埋怨說：「他們拿苦膽給我當食物，我渴了，他們拿醋給我喝」（詩69：21）。這些人辯論說，耶利米的話是一個隱喻，指基督的身體被釘在十字架的木頭上；並說，這乃是一些教父們的意見。我回答說，我們應寧可饒恕他們的無知，忘記他們的無恥，而不使他們更加厚顏無恥，繼續與先知耶利米的真意義作對。
　　十六、有些人看到，若將聖餐的表記和所表的事之間的類比廢除，就不免也將聖餐的真理廢除，於是承認聖餐中的餅，仍是屬世必朽之物，並沒有什麼改變；但是他們堅持餅中有基督的身體包含在裡面。倘若他們的意思是說，聖餐中的餅有基督的身體隨著來，因為所表的真理不能和它的表記分開，那麼我不反對這種說法。但是，既然他們將基督的身體納之於餅中，以主體無所不至——這是與它的本性不合的——而且說主體在餅內，說它藏在餅中，我們就必須揭開這類機巧。我並不是現在就要對此題全盤正式加以討論，我不過為將來的討論打下一個基礎。因此，他們堅持基督的身體無形無限，能以藏在餅中，因為他們以為除非基督從天下降於餅中，我們就無法領受他；但是他們對我們所說基督下降，把我們提高到他自己那裡的道理，則完全不懂。他們盡其所能提出各種動聽的借口，但他們說完以後，他們所爭持的，顯然是基督局部臨在的道理。這是什麼原因呢？這是因為他們認為，他們若不能接觸基督的肉體，或把它包藏起來，他們就不能領受他的血肉。
　　十七、為堅持他們的錯誤起見，他們當中有些人不惜主張基督的身體，充滿天地，他們說，他降生為嬰孩，長大成人，釘在十字架上封閉於墓中，都是由於神的一種安排，好以人的身分來成就我們得救所必須的。至於他復活后的身體顯現，升天，和後來向司提反和保羅的顯現，也是由於同樣的安排，好以天上君王的身分來彰顯給人看。這豈不是叫馬吉安（Marcion）再生嗎？因為基督的身體若是如此的，那麼，人就都必以它為一種幻影，沒有實體了。有些人用較機巧的話來辯論說，基督在聖餐中所賜的身體，乃是光榮不朽壞的，所以它在聖禮下或是包藏在不同的地方，或是不在什麼地方，或是完全不具形體，都沒有什麼荒謬處。但我要問，基督受難前夕，是以那一種身體給門徒呢？字句豈不表明，他所給的，即是行將被賣的必朽之體嗎？他們回答說，基督在山上已經向他的三個門徒彰顯了他的榮耀。那是真的；不過他那一次彰顯他的榮耀，乃是要使他們暫時瞥見他的不朽。他們並不能在那件事上發現基督有雙重身體，而只能見到基督一向所有的身體，披戴了非常的榮耀，不久又很快地復返於本來的狀況。但當他設立聖餐將他的身體分給人時，受難迫在眉睫，他要「被神擊打苦待，」將躺下像犯大麻瘋的人一樣，「無佳形美容」（賽53：2，4），那時他絕對無意彰顯他復活的榮耀。倘若基督的身體在一處表現為必死的卑微的，在另一處又被看為不死的光榮的，這是怎樣為馬吉安的錯誤大開方便之門呢？但是根據他們的原則，不啻是每天碰到馬吉安的幻影說，因為他們不得不承認，基督的身體是有形的，同時又是無形地隱藏在那作象徵的餅中。然而宣傳這種怪誕謬論的人，竟恬不知恥，反因為我們不接受他們的主張，而大大誹謗我們。
　　十八、若是將主的肉和血系之於聖餐的餅和酒中，那麼二者就必須彼此分開。因為餅和杯是分開發的，身體既繫於餅，就必然是和那含在酒中的血分開的。他們堅持說，肉是在餅中，血是在酒中，不過餅與酒既是彼此分開的，就無論他們怎樣巧辯，必然的結論乃是：基督的肉和血是分開的。他們慣常假託所謂「相伴」，說什麼血在體中，體在血中，這乃是屬瑣屑之談，因為那包含它們的象徵物乃是分開的。但是，倘若我們把觀點和思想提高朝向天上，在天國的榮耀中去追求基督，並且因為聖禮之象徵是邀請我們領受整個的他，藉餅的象徵吃他的肉，藉酒的象徵喝他的血，所以我們就可以享有整個的基督。因為雖然他的肉已離開了我們，隨著身體已上升於天，然而他坐在父的右邊，即在父的權柄，莊嚴，和榮耀里統治作王。他的國不受時間空間的限制；他照自己的意思，在天上地上任何地方發揮他的能力，用他的感力表現他的臨在，不斷與他的百姓同在，將自己的生命灌輸給他們，住在他們裡面，支持，加強，而且激勵他們，好像是他的身體與他們同在一樣；總之，他用自己的身體養活他們，這身體是他藉著聖靈的運行使他們領受的。基督的身體和血在聖餐中向我們呈現出來，就是這樣。
　　十九、我們必須在聖餐中建立基督的一種臨在，在一方面既不把他繫於餅上，也不把他含於其中，或者用任何減損他屬天光榮的方式限制他；在另一方面也不剝奪他身體的空間限制，或以為他的身體可以同時在各處，或以為它充滿天地，因那是和他的真實人性不相等的。我們切不要陷於以下兩種錯誤中。第一我們不要堅持什麼以致將基督屬天的榮耀貶損，例如把他置於此世必朽之物下，或系在世物上。第二我們也不要將什麼與他的人性不相符的屬性歸於他的身體，例如把他的身體認為是無限的，或說它同時臨在許多地方。這種謬論一經擯除，我就要欣然接受凡足以說明主藉聖餐的神聖象徵物，向信徒真是賜下他身體和血的道理；我也要說，人領聖餐，不只是用想象或領悟來領受，而是真享受它為永生的糧食。這種道理其所以如此不受世人歡迎，眾人其所以如此懷著成見反對它，除因他們深受撒但迷惑外，別無理由可以說明。我們所主張的道理，在各方面與聖經完全相合。它毫無荒謬，模糊，或不清楚之處；它與真虔誠和真信德毫不相違反；總之，它毫不包含什麼觸犯人的地方，不過數世紀以來，當詭辯家的無知和野蠻橫行於教會時，這種光亮和明顯的真理，可恥地受到了壓制。既然撒但在現代仍然竭力反對這道理，而且利用搗亂分子來加以各種誹謗和指責，以圖污損它，所以我們必須更加殷勤來發揮它擁護它。
　　二十、在我們進一步討論之前，必須先討論聖餐的設立，因為我們的對敵所提最動聽的反對理由，乃是說，我們撇棄了基督的話。我們為求剖白他們的誣控起見，最好是先解明基督的話。三位福音書作者和保羅的記載都告訴我們：「耶穌拿起餅來，祝謝了，就擘開，遞給門徒，說，你們拿著吃；這是我的身體，為你們舍的。又拿起杯來，說，這杯是用我的血所立的新約，為你們和多人流出來，使罪得赦」（太26：26-28；可14：22- 24；路22：19，20；林前11：23-25）。持化質說的人爭執說：代名詞「這」是指餅的外表，因為主所說的整句話都是為祝聖。照他們看，沒有什麼有形的實體，是可以為「這」字所指。但是，倘若他們因為基督說了他所遞給門徒的，乃是他的身體，便咬文嚼字起來，那麼什麼也不比說以前的餅現在變成了基督的身體，更不合這話的正當解釋了。因為基督說，那拿在手中遞給門徒的是他的身體，而他所拿的乃是「餅」。那麼，誰不知道，那代名字「這」字仍然是指著餅說的呢？所以，沒有什麼事比把所說實在的餅，變為徒有外形或幻像的餅，更為荒謬的了。另一些人以「是」字指化質說，他們的解釋更是荒謬絕倫。所以，他們毫不能借口說，他們的意見是因敬重基督的話而來的。因為，用「是」一字來指化為另一本質，這是在任何文字或國家中聞所未聞的事。那些承認聖餐中的餅仍然是餅，可是堅持它是與基督的真身體並存的人，彼此間的差異也頗大。那些主張較為溫和的，雖然對「這是我的身體」，堅持屬字面的意義，然而後來又離開字面的嚴格意義，把這句話解釋為指基督的身體，是與餅同在，在餅之內，並作餅的本質。關於他們所持的意見，我們已經說過，不久有機會還要論到；目前我所辯論的，只是關於主的話。他們自己認為必須謹守主的話，所以他們不能容許餅稱為他的身體，因為餅乃是主的身體的表記。但是，倘若他們反對任何字義的借喻，而拘守字面的原義，那麼，他們為何拋棄基督的話，而採用和基督的話完全不同的自己的說法呢？因為在「餅是身體」和「身體與餅在一起」兩種說法中間，是有天壤之別的。只因為他們知道不能維持「餅即是身體」的命題，所以他們企圖用那些遁辭來逃避他們的窘困。另一些人更為膽大，毫不猶豫地主張，照著那話的嚴格意義來說，餅即 「是」主的身體，由此證明他們主張字面的解釋。若有人抗議說，這樣餅便是基督，既是基督也便是上帝了，他們就要加以否認說，基督並沒有如此明說。但是他們否認也無濟於事，因為沒有人不承認，整個基督是在聖餐中賜予我們了。那麼主張一種脆弱必朽的東西不是表象，而是基督，乃是犯了不可容忍的褻瀆罪。我要請問他們，基督是上帝的兒子，而餅乃是基督的身體，這兩個命題是否彼此相同？倘若他們承認兩者不同——這是無論他們願與不願，不得不承認的——就讓他們說，其不同安在。我想他們除了說，餅被稱為基督的身體，只含有聖禮的意義，就再說不出什麼不同了。因此，基督的話就不當受普通的規律所拘束，不當按照文法的原則來探討。照樣，我也要請問那些拘守字義的人，路加和保羅所記基督的話：「這杯是用我血所立的新約，」豈不是與前一句話稱餅為主的身體，表達同樣的意思嗎？我們對設立聖餐的兩部分一定要有同樣的尊重；只因為第一句簡短容易產生模糊，他就加上更完全的一句來說明。所以，他們若根據那一個字來辯論，說，餅「是」 基督的身體，我就要根據那較完全的句子來說，餅是那用他的身體所立的「約」。難道我們要找一位比保羅和路加更可靠或更正確的解經家嗎？我已經承認，我並不要些微減少對基督身體的分享；我惟一的目的乃是要止住愚笨頑固的人在字義上激烈的爭辯。根據保羅和路加的權威，我知道餅稱為基督的身體，乃是因為它是那用他的身體所立的約。倘若他們拒絕這一點，他們不是同我爭執，乃是同上帝的靈爭執。雖然他們說，他們因為尊重基督的話，所以不敢將他明顯的話當作表象看，然而這並不足以作為他們對我所提出來一切反面的理由頑固拒絕的借口。同時，正如我曾提過的，我們必須了解「用基督的身體和血所立的約，」是什麼意思；因為我們若沒有與基督成為一體的奧秘相交，我們就不能從那用他的死所印證的約得益。
　　二十一、所以我們還要承認，由於所表之事是和它們的象徵有親密的關係，所以經上將實體之名給予表記，這固然是一種象徵的說法，但也是極洽當的了。我不用寓意比喻一類的說法，免得有人指責我用遁辭，離開本題。我發現聖經指聖禮，常用一種轉喻的說法；因為下面的話，不能用別的意義來了解。當聖經提到割禮時，便說：「這是我所立的約」（創17：10）；提到逾越節的羔羊時，便說：「這是耶和華的逾越節」（出12：11）；稱各種律法的祭為「贖罪祭」（出和利）；稱在曠野中流出水來的磐石為「那磐石就是基督」（林前10：4）。聖經不僅將尊者之名給予卑者，而且也將有形的表記之名給予所要表之事，如說神在荊棘中向摩西顯現了（出3：2），稱約櫃為神（詩84：7，42：2）。稱聖靈為鴿子（太3：16）。因為在象徵與其所表的事之間雖有根本的分別，即前者為屬物的，屬世的，看得見的，後者為屬靈的，屬天的，看不見的，然而象徵既不是一種虛空無用的紀念品，一種用祝聖來代表一事的淡影而已，而是該事的真實表陳；那麼為什麼不能將它所表的事之名，加之於它呢？但是人所發明的象徵雖然只是未見之事的表象，而不是已見之事的表記，而且這種象徵又常是最錯誤的表象，卻仍然常用它們所表的事之名來稱呼；那麼神所設立的象徵，就更有理由借用那由其所附著並實在代表之事的名稱了。因此，象徵與所表之事中間既有如此大的密切關係，那麼它們互換名稱是完全沒有什麼不自然的。這樣，我們的對敵最好停止他們的攻擊，不再用他們嘲笑人的智巧，來稱呼我們為轉喻家，因為我們是遵照聖經普通的用法，來解釋聖禮的用語。因為各種聖禮在許多方面既彼此很相同，所以它們也將這種轉喻的名稱交換應用。例如使徒保羅說，那給以色列人流出「靈水」的「磐石，就是基督」（林前10：4），因為那磐石乃是一個有形的象徵，藉著它以色列人領受那不為肉眼所見的「靈水」，照樣餅可稱為基督的身體，因為它乃是主用來把他的身體真賜給我們吃的。誰也不得藐視這為一種新奇的意見，因為奧古斯丁早就如此說過。他說：「倘若聖禮與它們所表之事沒有相同之處，那麼，它們就不成其為聖禮了。因著這種相同之處，聖禮甚至常用所表的事之名稱。所以，正如基督身體的聖禮，就某種意義來說，就是基督的身體，而基督血的聖禮，就是他的血，照樣信的聖禮就被稱為信。」他的著作包含許多這一類的話，用不著把它們都搜集起來，有了上面所引的一段就夠了。只是讀者當注意，這一位聖教父在達友阿丟（Euodius）一書中，曾屢次作同樣的說明。奧古斯丁說，聖禮最是常用轉喻說法，若說他未曾指到聖餐，那乃是一種瑣屑不足道的狡辯。倘若他們這種說法是對的，那麼，我們辯論時就不能用從全體推及各部的理論了，那即是不能說，既然一切動物都賦有動的能力，所以牛馬也賦有動的能力了。但是關於這一點不必再辯論，因為奧氏在另一處說得很好：「主將餅當作他的身體的記號遞給門徒時，就毫不猶豫地稱它為他的身體。」又說：「基督的耐心真好，容許猶大入席，在那席上，他設立聖餐，將他體和血的象徵，賜給了門徒。」
　　二十二、若有頑固的人，閉著眼睛，不顧一切，堅持「這是我的身體」，一語中的「這是」二字，好像這二字使聖餐和其他聖禮不同，那麼，給他回答，也很容易。他們辯論說，那「是」字是太肯定了，不容許我們稱它為一個表象。就令我們承認這一點，但是這動詞也為保羅所用，他說，「我們所擘開的餅，豈不是同領基督的身體么？」（林前10：16）。他在此稱餅為同領基督的身體。但同領是與身體本身不同的。幾乎在一切聖禮中，都用了這動詞——「這是我所立的約」，「這是耶和華的逾越節」（創17：10；出12：11）。保羅也說：「這磐石乃是基督」（林前10：4）。請問他們為什麼認為在這裡這同一動詞不如在基督話里所用的那樣肯定呢？他們最好也要解釋下面約翰所用的這一動詞，他說：「那時是還沒有聖靈的，因為耶穌尚未得著榮耀」 （約7：39）。他們若頑固地堅持他們的規律，就不免廢掉聖靈的永存性，以為聖靈在基督升天才開始存在。最後，當保羅稱洗禮是「重生的洗和更新，」（多 3：5）——雖然洗禮對許多人是明明無效的——我要問他們，保羅的命意安在？但駁倒他們最有力的論據，莫過於保羅所說，教會乃是基督。因為在他說到肢體的相似后，又加上說：「基督也是這樣」（林前12：12）；這裡他不是指上帝獨生子本身，而是指他的肢體。我想至此已算成功，叫凡有見識和品德的人，厭惡我們的對敵所加可恥的誹謗，指責我們不信基督的話，其實我們不但像他們一樣服從基督的話，而且更加尊重。實在說，他們只要是能夠利用基督來掩護自己的頑固，就漠視疏忽基督的意思和旨意究竟是什麼，這適足以證明他們對於這問題很少關心；而我們殷勤追究基督的實意所在，就適足以證明我們對基督的權威極其尊重。他們懷著惡意說，人的理智攔阻了我們相信基督親自用聖口所說的話；但是他們是如何不公道地誣控我們，我已經大體說明了，還要更加說明。所以沒有什麼阻擋我們相信並接受基督所說的一切話。惟一的問題乃是，追究他的實在意思，是否是不當。
　　二十三、這些好博士為求表現自己是文人，甚至禁止人稍微離開字面的意義，我要答覆說，聖經稱神為「戰士」，倘若不以比方的意義來解釋，這種說法便太刺耳了，我不猶豫地承認，這種說法乃是借用人的比方。誠然，古時擬人派引「耶和華的眼觀看」，「這話為主的耳所聽見」，「他的手伸出，」「地是他的腳凳」一類的經文，指責正統派教父們把經上所歸於神的身體剝奪了。這種釋經法若被承認，那麼，一切信仰的亮光就都要被粗鄙的野蠻所淹沒。因為狂熱派若能從聖經上引用各種散漫和為人錯解的字句，來證明自己的意見，那麼有什麼荒謬絕倫之見，是他們不能從聖經引出來的呢？他們提出反對理由說，基督在門徒要遭患難時所用以安慰他們的話，決不會有曖昧或隱晦之處，這一理由倒適足以完全維持我們的立場。因為倘若使徒不懂得稱餅為它的身體，不過是一種比喻的說法，以餅為它身體的象徵，那麼，他們一定會為這種奇怪的話所困惱。因為約翰記載說，即在那時，最細微的困難也使他們困擾（約14：5，8， 16：17）。他們彼此間辯論，基督怎樣回到父那裡去，又不明白他怎麼離開這個世界，也完全不明白關於天父所說的，因為他們未曾見過他。他們即是這樣，倘若基督還在他們眼前坐席的時候，說他是無形地被包藏在餅中，那麼他們怎能相信這種與理智完全相違的事呢？他們既毫不遲疑吃那餅，便證明他們接受基督的話，像我們所了解的意義一樣，認為在一切聖禮中通常都將表記之名移用於所表之事。所以，這對門徒正如對我們一樣，是確實明白的安慰語，並沒有什麼曖昧的地方；至於有些人反對我們的解釋，無非是因魔鬼迷惑了他們，使他們把那有自然而明顯意義的美麗的表象，想象為曖昧不明的。此外，倘若我們拘守字面的意義，那麼基督關於餅所說的，就與他關於杯所說的不相符合。他稱餅為他的身體，稱酒為他的血。這若不是一種虛空的重複,便是將身體和血分開。照著他們的說法很可以說，杯是身體，或餅是血。倘若他們回答說，我們應當注意設立這些象徵之目的或用途，我就不妨加以承認，但這仍不足以使他們從那以餅為血，以酒為身體的錯謬中解脫出來，他們既承認餅和身體是兩件不同的東西，同時卻主張餅可恰當地稱為身體，而不是什麼表象；宛如有人說，衣服是與人不同，然而衣服卻可恰當地稱為人一樣，那麼我就不知怎樣了解他們了。同時，好像他們要以頑固和誹謗來爭取勝利，當我們追究基督的話的真諦時，他們便指責我們以基督為說謊的。現在讀者易於判斷，這些咬文嚼字的人是何等不公平對待我們，他們叫簡單的人看我們為損毀了基督的話的權威，其實我們已證明，他們顛倒錯亂基督的話，我們卻信實準確地對判它加以解釋了。
　　二十四至三十、繼續駁斥異己的主張，維持自己的主張——從略。
　　三十一、凡屬認為除非基督的身體在聖餐中是與餅連結，便不能想象到他的臨在的，真是大大受了騙，因為這樣一來，他們就不為那叫我們和基督相連的聖靈的奧妙運行，稍留餘地。他們以為除非基督降到我們這裡來，他就沒有臨在，好像他不能提高我們到他那裡，使我們與他同在一般。所以在我們和我們對敵當中的惟一問題，乃是關於基督臨在的樣式問題，他們把基督放在餅中，而我們以為將基督從天拿下，乃是不對的。讓讀者們評判，真理在那一方面。我們不願再聽到誹謗的話說，除非承認基督藏在餅中，就是將它撇於聖禮之外。因為這是一個屬天的奧秘，所以不需把基督拿到地上，才使他與我們合一。
　　三十二、若有人問我關於基督存在的方式，我將坦然承認，這乃是一個太崇高的奧秘，非我所能說的，甚至非我所能領略；更明顯說，我只要經驗它，而不需了解它。這裡，我不要爭辯，我服膺神的真理，這真理是我所能安全依賴的。基督宣布他的肉和血是我心靈的飲食。我將我的心靈奉獻給他，由他用這種飲食來養活。在聖餐里，他命令我藉餅酒的象徵吃他的肉，喝他的血。我不疑惑他是真臨在，並由我領受。不過我拒絕凡貶損基督的尊嚴，和凡與他真實的人性不相符的謬論。這種謬論又是與聖經不相符的，因為聖經告訴我們，基督已被接入天國的榮耀，遠超乎一切世上的情況之上，而且聖經也留意將真的人性歸於基督。這並非是不可信或不合理的，因為基督的國既是完全屬靈的，所以他與他教會的往來不受屬世制度的限制。奧古斯丁說：「這奧秘像別的奧秘一樣，是由人來舉行，但是以神聖的方式出之；它是在地上舉行的，但是以天上的方式出之。」我說，基督身體之臨在，是按照聖禮所必要的，是大有能力和功效的，不僅使我們心中深信永生，而且也向我們保證身體復活。因為我們的身體是靠基督永生之體而活，並且多少分享他的永生。凡言過其實的人，不過是使簡單明白的真理被錯雜的話弄得模糊不清。若有人仍不滿意，我就要請他注意，我們現在是討論一個聖禮，它的每一部分都應以信心為歸依。我們分享基督的身體，以求養活我們的信心，是並不亞於那些要把基督的身體從天拿下來的人。同時，我坦白承認，我拒絕他們把基督的肉和我們的靈魂相混或使之滲入我們的說法；因為只要基督從他的肉身，將生命灌輸到我們的靈里，即是將他的生命輸入我們的生命中，雖然他的肉體並未實際進入我們的身體中，我們也就知足了。我還要說，那由保羅吩咐我們用以試驗每一聖經解釋的信仰類比，在這一件事上，毫無疑問地乃是極有利於我們的主張。讓那反對這樣清楚的一個真理的仇敵去自省，他們憑什麼信仰標準來規範自己。「凡不認耶穌是成了肉身來的，就不是出於神」（約壹4：3）。這些人，不拘他們是假裝，還是不察，總是否認了基督實在的肉體。
　　三十三至三十八、繼續駁斥羅馬教的聖餐觀和對聖餐餅酒的崇拜——從略。
　　三十九、前面我已申述，若沒有道，就沒有舉行聖禮。因為我們從聖餐所得的益處，都靠著道。無論我們要在信心上堅固，在見證上熟練，在本分上奮發，就都需要道。因此，再沒有什麼比在教皇的專制下，將聖餐變為啞口無言的舉動，更為荒謬的了。因為他們堅持說，使聖餐之祝聖歸於有效，是全在乎神甫的意向，好像這是與受餐者無關一般，其實對受餐者是最應解說這奧秘。他們陷於這種錯誤，乃是因為他們沒有注意到，祝聖所依靠的應許，並不是對著餅酒說的，便是對著受餐者說的。基督並不是對餅說話，吩咐它變為他的身體，而是吩咐門徒吃餅，應許他們分享他的身體和血。保羅除教訓我們將主的應許與餅和杯一同給信徒外，也沒有教訓別的。這是實在的，我們不要妄想出什麼魔術性的咒語，或以為只要將話喃喃念一下便夠，好像話是由餅酒去聽的。我們倒要以祝聖餅酒的話，為一篇活躍的講道，以教訓聽者，透入他們的意念，銘刻於他們的心中，使所講的道，作成主所應許的。由此可見，許多人主張保留聖餐，特別給病人領受，那乃是完全無用的辦法。不是病人受餐而聽不到念基督設立聖餐的話，便是施發聖餐者必須將聖餐的奧秘真實加以解明。若不說什麼，便是濫用或敗壞聖餐。倘若將主的應許和聖餐的奧秘宣布，使人領受聖餐而得益，我們就無理由懷疑，這乃是真的祝聖。至於病人不在場的祝聖，對他有什麼益處呢？他們申辯說，這種措施有古教會為例。這一點我承認；但關於這樣重大的事，一有錯誤就很危險，所以沒有什麼比遵循真理更為妥當的了。
　　四十、我們既明白聖餐中的餅乃是靈糧，對誠懇崇拜神的人是佳美有益的，使凡領受的人體驗到基督是他們的生命，激勵他們感恩，彼此相愛；反之，若聖餐不培養人堅固的信心，又不激發他們感恩和相愛的心，那麼，它就變成了一種最有害的毒素。因為正如肉體的糧食進入犯病的胃子，就腐壞，有害而無益；照樣這屬靈的糧食進入一個為邪惡所敗壞的靈魂，也適足以使之淪入更可怕的滅亡中，這並不是因為食物有壞處，而是因為「在污穢不信的人，什麼都不潔凈」（多1： 15），不管它本身是如何為主所祝聖了。正如保羅說：「無論何人，不按理吃主的餅，喝主的杯，就是干犯主的身主的血了。因為人吃喝，若不分辨是主的身體，就是吃喝自己的罪了」（林前11：27，29）。這種人，毫無信心和愛心，像一群豬闖來領受聖餐，並不分辨這是主的身體。他們既不相信主的身體是他們的生命，就盡其所能地羞辱它，剝奪它的尊嚴，用褻瀆的樣式來領受。他們既與弟兄不和，也想把基督身體之神聖象徵與他們的不和相混合。基督的身體若不被分裂，並不是因為他們的緣故。他們既如此可恥地以褻瀆的不虔敬來玷污主的身體和血，所以，說他們是干犯主的身體和主的血，乃是十分對的。他們如此不合理地來領受聖餐，乃是吃喝自己的罪。因為他們對基督雖毫無信心，卻來領受聖餐，這就證明他們承認，除基督以外沒有別的救法，沒有別的依靠。因此他們乃是自己控訴自己，自己定自己的罪。更且，他們既與弟兄分裂，那就是和基督的肢體分裂，所以與基督無分，然而他們證實，得救的惟一方法乃是分享基督，與他聯合。為此保羅吩咐說：「人應當自己省察，然後吃這餅喝這杯」（林前11：28）。就我所了解的，那就是說，每一個人須退而自省，看他是否誠心信靠基督為他所獲得的救恩；是否口中承認；是否熱烈效法基督，追求人格的完整和聖潔；是否效法基督，專心為弟兄服務，並與在基督里的人彼此相交；是否像基督承認他一樣，他也承認弟兄為他的肢體，是否願意提攜，保守，並援助他們，如同自己的肢體一樣。這並不是說，這種信心和愛心已經在我們身上全備了，而是說，這乃是我們所當迫切努力達成的，好使我們的信心逐漸增加，愛心日日進步。
　　四十一、一般說來，當他們想要準備人去配領聖餐時，他們乃使可憐的良心煩惑不寧，卻不提到一件領受聖餐所需要的事。他們說，凡「配吃」的人，乃是在恩典中的人。他們所謂在恩典中，乃是指清潔無罪而言——這一種說法不免將一切現在活著，或曾活在世上的人都排除於聖餐的恩惠之外。因為倘若我們必須使自己配領，我們都算完了；擺在我們前頭的，就只有混亂，失望，和滅亡。我們雖竭力追求，也不能得著什麼，我們極端辛勞，以求獲得多少功德，最後不過發現，我們無功德可言。他們為要醫治這創傷，就想出了一個獲得功德的方法，即我們既已盡量省察自己的良心，並檢討自己的行為，就當以痛悔，認罪，和補罪，來滌除我們的不配。但這種滌除是怎樣的，我們已在更適當的地方討論過了。就當前的題目來說，我看到，這些安慰的方法對於一個煩惱，痛苦，沮喪，為罪惡所重壓的良心，是太無用處了。因為，倘若除了無罪的義人以外，主禁止人領聖餐，那麼要叫人得著神所要求於人的稱義的把握，就太困難了。我們有什麼根據，來說神對那些已經盡其所能的人滿意了呢？即令神滿意了，那裡有人敢宣布說，他已經盡其所能呢？這樣我們就沒有配領聖餐的把握，而進入這聖禮之門也永遠是關閉的，因為那可畏的禁令是說：「凡不配吃喝的，就是吃喝自己的罪了。」
　　四十二、我們易於判斷，羅馬教會所盛行的，是種什麼教義，而產生它的是誰。這教義極其嚴酷，從那些已為驚惶和痛苦磨難的可憐罪人奪去福音在聖餐中所有的安慰。魔鬼滅亡人的方法，再沒有什麼方法比叫人如此昏迷，以致不能享受他們最慈悲的天父養活他們的糧食，更為簡易的了。我們若要不自陷於此深淵中，就須記著，聖餐乃是病人的醫藥，罪人的安慰，窮人的周濟；倘若世上能找到健康，富足和公義的人，聖餐對他們是不能給予什麼益處的。因為在聖餐中，基督既是賜給了我們為糧食，我們就曉得，沒有基督，我們就要消瘦，受餓，暈倒，如同身體缺乏糧食，便失去活力一般。更且，基督既賜下作為我們的生命，我們就曉得，我們若沒有他，而只靠自己，就沒有生命。所以我們所能呈於神面前的功德，乃是把我們的卑劣和不配呈明，叫他可以用他的憐憫，使我們配領受；對自己灰心，好在主裡面得安慰；叫自己謙卑，好被主升高，又對自己控訴，好靠主稱義；同時追求他在聖餐中所囑咐我們的合一；既然他叫我們在他裡面成為一體，所以我們應當渴望同有一心，一意，一口。倘若我們將這些事存在心中，仔細思想，那麼，雖然我們有時不免惶恐，決不會因下面的想法而惑亂：我們既窮困可憐，毫無善德，又為罪惡所玷污，幾乎至於半死，我們怎能配領主的身體呢？我們反倒只當想道：我們乃是如同窮人，到一個慷慨的施主面前來，如同病人到醫生面前來，如同罪人到賜公義者的面前來，又如同死人到生命的泉源來；神向我們所索取的義，主要地是在乎信，這信將一切歸於基督，完全不靠自己，其次是在乎愛，這愛雖是不完全的，也可以獻給神，由他增加，並改良，因為我們不能產生完全的愛。有些人雖與我們同意，認為主所索取的功德，乃是在乎信和愛，然而對於那義的程度，卻陷於大錯誤中，要求人所不能達到的完全的信，以及基督向我們所表現的完全的愛。但他們的這種要求，正像我們前面所說的那些人一樣，勢必將萬人排除於聖餐之外。因為我們若承認他們的見解，就找不到配領聖餐的人，因為人人都要承認自己不完全。誠然，若要求人領聖餐，必須具備一種不免使聖餐成為不必要的完全，這且不說是暴露愚拙，至少是暴露極端的無知，因為聖餐不是為完全的人設立的，乃是為軟弱不完全的人設立的，以便提醒，鼓勵，並操練他們信和愛的恩典，且糾正他們在信愛上的缺點。
　　四十三、關於聖餐的外表儀式，即信徒把餅拿在手中呢，彼此分餅呢，還是各人吃所分給的呢；或將杯交還執事呢，還是將杯遞給別人呢；用有酵還是無酵的餅呢；用紅色還是白色的酒呢，都是毫不關重要的。這些事都是無可無不可的，由教會自由決定。但是，古教會的風習確是由每個人將餅拿到手中。而且基督說過：「大家分著吃」（路22：17）。歷史告訴我們，在羅馬主教亞力山大之前，所用的是普通有酵的餅，他是頭一個主張用無酵餅的；原因安在，我不知道，也許只是叫人羨慕一個新花樣，必不是為要將純正的教義教訓人。我要問那些有任何虔誠的人，他們豈不是清楚看出，這樣按理領受聖餐，與那些無關重要而只足以戲弄欺騙觀眾的花樣比，是多麼更能彰顯神的榮耀，更能使信徒得心靈的安慰么？那些隨著自己所喜歡的來用迷信愚弄人民的人，還說這是用宗教來約束人民。若有人訴諸古人，來為這種捏造辯護，我也知道早期在洗禮中用聖油和騙邪咒，乃是很早的，而且在聖餐中引入敗壞的作風，是在使徒時代之後立刻就有了。人僭越的自信總不能約束自己不戲弄神的奧秘。但是我們須記得，神非常重視人服從他的道，甚至叫我們以這道來審判天使和全世界。現在讓我們離開這一大堆儀式，來說到我們很可以依下列方法，常常或至少每禮拜一次給會眾發聖餐。起始須有祈禱；然後須有講道；再后，主禮的牧師既將餅與酒陳列於桌上，，當讀設立聖餐的經文，並宣布在聖餐中主所留給我們的應許；同時理當不準主所禁止的人來領受。以後再禱告，求主用他賜我們聖餐的寬仁大愛，來教訓並幫助我們用信心和感謝的心領受，求他可憐我們的不配，使我們配領。此後或唱詩篇，或選讀一段經文，於是信徒乃依次分領聖筵，由牧師擘開餅，將餅與杯交給信徒；聖餐完畢之後，要勸人有誠懇的信心，愛心，和合乎基督徒的品行。最後，應當感謝讚美神。末后便安靜散會。
　　四十四、以上論聖餐的話，充分表明聖餐的設立，並不是像如今的普遍習慣，每年只領受一次，慢不經心，徒具形式的，而是要基督徒常常舉行，好使他們常想起基督受苦受難，因而堅固他們的信仰，激發他們讚美神，並承認和頌揚他的良善，而且要彼此相愛，這愛是在教會的團結上表現出來的。因為我們同領聖餐，就等於互相保證要彼此相愛，不作有損弟兄的事，且一有需要和機會，也不遺漏什麼能夠幫助弟兄的事。按路加的記載，使徒時代的教會便是這樣，他說：信徒「都恆心遵守使徒的教訓，彼此交接，擘餅，祈禱」（徒2：42）。可見一成不變的辦法乃是，每逢教會聚會，必須宣道，祈禱，舉行聖餐，施捨。在哥林多教會所成立的秩序便是這樣，乃是很可以從保羅的書信中推斷出來的；而且以後許多世代也如此奉行，乃是人所共曉的。因此，有指為亞拿克勒都（Anacletus）和加里克斯都（Calixtus）所撰的古代教條記著說：「祝謝聖餐之後，信徒均須領受，否則要受革出教會之處分。」有指為使徒所遺下的古代教條記著說：「凡聚會不等到完畢，不領聖餐者，應被認為攪亂教會的，而予以糾正。」安提阿會議也曾頒布，凡進入教堂，聽道，卻不領受聖餐的人，應被革出教會，直到他們將這過失糾正。雖然後來托立多（Toledo）第一次會議曾將此項教條減輕，然而也有命令說，凡聽道之後，從不領受聖餐者，須受勸戒；倘若不聽，就須將他們革出教會。
　　四十五至四十八、駁斥教皇所頒一年一次領聖餐令，和只將餅給平信徒之非——從略。
　　四十九、對於這樣顯明的一件事，我何必辯論呢？任何人讀希臘和拉丁教父的著作，就會發現他們曾充分如此證明。當教會尚存一點純潔時，將杯給與平信徒的辦法便尚未作廢。貴鉤利可說是羅馬最後的主教，他表示在他的時代，這辦法仍然流行。他說：「你現在知道羔羊的血是什麼，並不是由於聽到，而是由於喝了。他的血是給信徒喝的。」不管教會如何普遍腐化，這辦法仍然在他死後流行了四百年，不僅被視為一種風氣，而且被視為一種不可侵犯的定律。因為當時對神所設立的聖餐很是尊重，並深信人若把主所合為一體的東西分開，乃是罪惡。羅馬主教格拉修（Gelasius）曾如此說：「就我們所知道的，有些人只領受主的身體，不領杯；這些人似為一種奇怪的迷信所束縛，應當或是領受整個的聖餐，或是完全不領。因為將這奧秘分裂，便不免大大褻瀆神。」居普良所提出的理由，也足以說服一個基督徒，他說：「倘若我們對那些將要參加奮鬥的人，拒絕給與基督的血，我們如何能教訓或鼓勵他們去為承認基督而流血呢？倘若我們不先讓他們在教會中喝主的杯，我們怎能準備他們喝殉道的杯呢？」教條家以為格拉修的教會只是對神甫說的，但這是一種不值得一駁的幼稚說法。
　　五十、基督遞餅的時候，只說「拿著吃，」而傳杯的時候卻說，「你們都喝這個，」他豈不是顯然有意謹防撒但的狡計么？倘若如我們的對敵所說，我們的主只許獻祭的神甫領聖餐，那麼，誰敢如此僭越來邀請主所拒絕的外人來領受聖餐呢？豈不知，倘若沒有主的命令，神甫們就沒有權柄把這恩賜給平信徒么？倘若他們既沒有主的命令，又沒有主的榜樣，他們現在憑著什麼來把基督的身體的象徵分給人呢？保羅對哥林多人說：「我當日傳給你們的，原是從主領受的」（林前11： 23），他豈是說謊呢？因他後來宣布說，他所傳的，乃是大家都當領受餅和杯。倘若保羅從主領受的，是大家都當領受餅和杯，那麼他們幾乎將神的一切子民都撇開了，試問這是從誰領受的；因為現在他們不能冒稱他們的教義是從那「並沒有是而又非的」上帝（林后1：18）而來的。然而他們卻膽敢用教會的名義來掩蓋並維護這種可憎的事。難道那些輕易將基督的教訓和設施加以踐踏，毀壞，並廢棄的敵基督者，乃是教會么？那表現有真實宗教影響的使徒教會，豈不是真的教會么？

一至四、聖餐所表的是什麼——從略。

1. Sign and thing

After God has once received us into his family, it is not that he may regard us in the light of servants, but of sons, performing the part of a kind and anxious parent, and providing for our maintenance during the whole course of our lives. And, not contented with this, he has been pleased by a pledge to assure us of his continued liberality. To this end, he has given another sacrament to his Church by the hand of his only begotten Son, viz., a spiritual feast, at which Christ testifies that he himself is living bread, (John 6: 51,) on which our souls feed, for a true and blessed immortality.

Now, as the knowledge of this great mystery is most necessary, and, in proportion to its importance, demands an accurate exposition, and Satan, in order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago introduced, first, mists, and then darkness, to obscure its light, and stirred up strife and contention to alienate the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our age, also, has tried the same artifice, I will proceed, after giving a simple summary adapted to the capacity of the ignorant, to explain those difficulties by which Satan has tried to ensnare the world.

First, then, the signs are bread and wine, which represent the invisible food which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word.

Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.

But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. We now therefore, understand the end which this mystical benediction has in view, viz., to assure us that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice, - that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you," (Matth. 26: 26, &c.) The body which was once offered for our salvation we are enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred blood as drink to us.

2. Union with Christ as the special fruit of the Lord's Supper

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

3. The Spiritual presence of Christ

To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive - Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation.

And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you. It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation. Wherefore they are represented under bread and wine, that we may learn that they are not only ours but intended to nourish our spiritual life; that is, as we formerly observed, by the corporeal things which are produced in the sacrament, we are by a kind of analogy conducted to spiritual things.

Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us.

(The promise sealed in the Supper as we are made partakers of Christ's flesh - a mystery felt rather than explained, 4-7)
4. The meaning of the promise of the Lord's Supper

Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever - I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption.

五至七、我們當怎樣領受聖餐——從略。

5. How are we partakers by faith

It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 51; cf. ch.6:52) doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates.

Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries themselves.

That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life.

Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined. but there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine. According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them, eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, (Eph. 3: 17,) no one will interpret that dwelling to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith, because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.

6. Augustine and Chrysostom on this

When Augustine, whom they claim as their patron, wrote, that we eat by believing, all he meant was to indicate that that eating is of faith, and not of the mouth. This I deny not; but I at the same time add, that by faith we embrace Christ, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting himself to us, he being our head, and we his members. I do not absolutely disapprove of that mode of speaking; I only deny that it is a full interpretation, if they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ. I see that Augustine repeatedly used this form of expression, as when he said, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3,) "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man" is a figurative expression enjoining us to have communion with our Lord's passion, and sweetly and usefully to treasure in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us." Also when he says, "These three thousand men who were converted at the preaching of Peter, (Acts 2: 41,) by believing, drank the blood which they had cruelly shed." But in very many other passages he admirably commends faith for this, that by means of it our souls are not less refreshed by the communion of the blood of Christ, than our bodies with the bread which they eat. The very same thing is said by Chrysostom, "Christ makes us his body, not by faith only, but in reality." He does not mean that we obtain this blessing from any other quarter than from faith: he only intends to prevent any one from thinking of mere imagination when he hears the name of faith.

I say nothing of those who hold that the Supper is merely a mark of external professions because I think I sufficiently refuted their error when I treated of the sacraments in general, (Chap. 14. sec. 13.) Only let my readers observe, that when the cup is called the covenant in blood, (Luke 22: 20,) the promise which tends to confirm faith is expressed. Hence it follows, that unless we have respect to God, and embrace what he offers, we do not make a right use of the sacred Supper.

7. Thought and words inadequate

I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion with these hyperbolical doctors, who, according to their gross ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehends or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.

二十四至三十、繼續駁斥異己的主張，維持自己的主張——從略。

24. Defense against the reproach that our interpretation is dictated by reason

This infamous falsehood cannot be completely wiped away without disposing of another charge. They give out that we are so wedded to human reason, that we attribute nothing more to the power of God than the order of nature admits, and common sense dictates. From these wicked calumnies, I appeal to the doctrine which I have delivered, - a doctrine which makes it sufficiently clear that I by no means measure this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or subject it to the laws of nature. I ask whether it is from physics we have learned that Christ feeds our souls from heaven with his flesh, just as our bodies are nourished by bread and wine? How has flesh this virtue of giving life to our souls? All will say, that it is not done naturally. Not more agreeable is it to human reason to hold that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us, so as to be our food. In short, every one who may have tasted our doctrine, will be carried away with admiration of the secret power of God.

But these worthy zealots fabricate for themselves a miracle, and think that without it God himself and his power vanish away.

I would again admonish the reader carefully to consider the nature of our doctrine, whether it depends on common apprehension, or whether, after having surmounted the world on the wings of faith, it rises to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external symbol as by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and blood. He who feels not that in these few words are many miracles is more than stupid, since nothing is more contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should, notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be collected, but united, so that souls receive ailment from the flesh of Christ. Let preposterous men, then, cease to assail us with the vile calumny, that we malignantly restrict the boundless power of God. They either foolishly err, or wickedly lie.

The question here is not, What could God do? But, What has he been pleased to do? We affirm that he has done what pleased him, and it pleased him that Christ should be in all respects like his brethren, "yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.) What is our flesh? Is it not that which consists of certain dimensions? is confined within a certain place? is touched and seen? And why, say they, may not God make the same flesh occupy several different places so as not to be confined to any particular place, and so as to have neither measure nor species? Fool! why do you require the power of God to make a thing to be at the same time flesh and not flesh? It is just as if you were to insist on his making light to be at the same time light and darkness. He wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh. True, when he so chooses, he will convert darkness into light, and light into darkness: but when you insist that there shall be no difference between light and darkness, what do you but pervert the order of the divine wisdom? Flesh must therefore be flesh, and spirit spirit; each under the law and condition on which God has created them. How the condition of flesh is, that it should have one certain place, its own dimension, its own form. On that condition, Christ assumed the flesh, to which, as Augustine declares, (Ep. ad Dardan.,) he gave incorruption and glory, but without destroying its nature and reality.

25. The word requires understanding and interpretation

They object that they have the word by which the will of God has been openly manifested; that is, if we permit them to banish from the Church the gift of interpretation (I. Cor. 12:10), which should throw light upon the word.

I admit that they have the word, but just as the Anthropomorphites of old had it, when they made God corporeal; just as Marcion and the Manichees had it when they made the body of Christ celestial or phantastical. They quoted the passages, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven," (1 Cor. 15: 47 Christ "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2: 7.)

But these vain boasters think that there is no power of God unless they fabricate a monster in their own brains, by which the whole order of nature is subverted. This rather is to circumscribe the power of God, to attempt to try, by our fictions, what he can do. From this word, they have assumed that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet lurks invisible on the earth under innumerable bits of bread. They will say that this is rendered necessary, in order that the body of Christ may be given in the Supper. In other words, because they have been pleased to extract a carnal eating from the words of Christ, carried away by their own prejudice, they have found it necessary to coin this subtlety, which is wholly repugnant to Scripture.

That we detract, in any respect, from the power of God, is so far from being true, that our doctrine is the loudest in extolling it. But as they continue to charge us with robbing God of his honour, in rejecting what, according to common apprehension, it is difficult to believe, though it had been promised by the mouth of Christ; I answer, as I lately did, that in the mysteries of faith we do not consult common apprehension, but, with the placid docility and spirit of meekness which James recommends, (James 1: 21,) receive the doctrine which has come from heaven.

Wherein they perniciously err, I am confident that we follow a proper moderation. On hearing the words of Christ, This is my body, they imagine a miracle most remote from his intention; and when, from this fiction, the grossest absurdities arise, having already, by their precipitate haste, entangled themselves with snares, they plunge themselves into the abyss of the divine omnipotence, that, in this way, they may extinguish the light of truth. Hence the supercilious moroseness. We have no wish to know how Christ is hid under the bread: we are satisfied with his own words, "This is my body." We again study, with no less obedience than care, to obtain a sound understanding of this passages as of the whole of Scripture. We do not, with preposterous fervour, rashly, and without choice, lay hold on whatever first presents itself to our minds; but, after careful meditation, embrace the meaning which the Spirit of God suggests. Trusting to him, we look down, as from a height, on whatever opposition may be offered by earthly wisdom. Nay, we hold our minds captive, not allowing one word of murmur, and humble them, that they may not presume to gainsay. In this way, we have arrived at that exposition of the words of Christ, which all who are moderately verdant in Scripture know to be perpetually used with regard to the sacraments. Still, in a matter of difficulty, we deem it not unlawful to inquire, after the example of the blessed virgin, "How shall this be?" (Luke 1: 34.)

26. The body of Christ is in heaven

But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of the pious than to show them that the doctrine which we have laid down is taken from the pure word of God, and rests on its authority, I will make this plain with as much brevity as I can. The body with which Christ rose is declared, not by Aristotle, but by the Holy Spirit, to be finite, and to be contained in heaven until the last day (cf. Acts 3:21). I am not unaware how confidently our opponents evade the passages which are quoted to this effect. Whenever Christ says that he will leave the world and go away, (John 14: 2, 28,) they reply, that that departure was nothing more than a change of mortal state. Were this so, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit, to supply, as they express it, the defect of his absence, since he does not succeed in place of him, nor, on the other hand, does Christ himself descend from the heavenly glory to assume the condition of a mortal life. Certainly the advent of the Spirit and the ascension of Christ are set against each other, and hence it necessarily follows that Christ dwells with us according to the flesh, in the same way as that in which he sends his Spirit.

Moreover, he distinctly says that he would not always be in the world with his disciples, (Matth. 26: 11.) This saying, also, they think they admirably dispose of, as if it were a denial by Christ that he would always be poor and mean, or liable to the necessities of a fading life. But this is plainly repugnant to the context, since reference is made not to poverty and want, or the wretched condition of an earthly life, but to worship and honour. The disciples were displeased with the anointing by Mary because they thought it a superfluous and useless expenditure, akin to luxury, and would therefore have preferred that the price which they thought wasted should have been expended on the poor. Christ answers, that he will not be always with them to receive such honour.

No different exposition is given by Augustine, whose words are by no means ambiguous. When Christ said, "Me ye have not always," he spoke of his bodily presence. In regard to his majesty, in regard to his providence, in regard to his ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said: "Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world," (Matt. 28: 20;) but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed - in regard to that which was born of the Virgin - in regard to that which was apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, suspended on the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the tomb, and manifested in the resurrection, - "Me ye have not always." Why? Since he conversed with his disciples in bodily presence for forty days, and, going out with them, ascended while they saw but followed not. He is not here, for he sits there, at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). And yet he is here: for the presence of his majesty is not withdrawn (Heb. 1:3). Otherwise, as regards the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always; while, in regard to his bodily presence, it was rightly said, "Me ye have not always."(Matt. 26:11). In respect of bodily presence, the Church had him for a few days: now she holds him by faith, but sees him not with the eye, (August. Tract. in Joann. 50.)

Here (that I may briefly note this) he makes him present with us in three ways in majesty providence, and ineffable grace; under which I comprehend that wondrous communion of his body and blood, provided we understand that it is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by that fictitious enclosing of his body under the element, since our Lord declared that he had flesh and bones which could be handled and seen (John 20:27).

Going away, and ascending, intimate, not that he had the appearance of one going away and ascending, but that he truly did what the words express. Some one will ask, Are we then to assign a certain region of heaven to Christ? I answer with Augustine that this is a curious and superfluous questions provided we believe that he is in heaven.

27. The meaning of the ascension for the above-mentioned question

What? Does not the very name of ascension, so often repeated, intimate removal from one place to another? This they deny because by height, according to them, the majesty of empire only is denoted. But what was the very mode of ascending? Was he not carried up while the disciples looked on? Do not the Evangelists clearly relate that he was carried into heaven? These acute Sophists reply, that a cloud intervened, and took him out of their sight, to teach the disciples that he would not afterwards be visible in the world. As if he ought not rather to have vanished in a moment, to make them believe in his invisible presence, or the cloud to have gathered around him before he moved a step. When he is carried aloft into the air, and the interposing cloud shows that he is no more to be sought on earth, we safely infer that his dwelling now is in the heavens, as Paul also asserts, bidding us to look for him frown thence, (Phil. 3: 20.) For this reason, the angels remind the disciples that it is vain to keep gazing up into heaven, because Jesus, who was taken up, would come in like manner as they had seen him ascend (Acts 1:11).

Here the adversaries of sound doctrine escape, as they think, by the ingenious quibble, that he will come in visible form, though he never departed from the earth, but remained invisible among his people. As if the angels had insinuated a twofold presence, and not simply made the disciples eye-witnesses of the ascent, that no doubt might remain. It was just as if they had said, By ascending to heaven, while you looked on, he has asserted his heavenly power: it remains for you to wait patiently until he again arrive to judge the world. He has not entered into heaven to occupy it alone, but to gather you and all the pious along with him.

28. The witness of Augustine

Since the advocates of this spurious dogma are not ashamed to honour it with the suffrages of the ancients, and especially of Augustine, how perverse they are in the attempt I will briefly explain. Pious and learned men have collected the passages, and, therefore, I am unwilling to plead a concluded cause: any one who wishes may consult their writings. I will not even collect from Augustine what might be pertinent to the matter, but will be contented to show briefly, that without all controversy he is wholly ours.

The pretence of our opponents, when they would wrest him from us, that throughout his works the flesh and blood of Christ are said to be dispensed in the Supper, namely the victim once offered on the cross, is frivolous, seeing he, at the same time, calls it either the eucharist or sacrament of the body. But it is unnecessary to go far to find the sense in which he uses the terms flesh and blood, since he himself explains saying, (Ep. 23, ad Bonif.) that the sacraments receive names from their similarity to the things which they designate; and that, therefore, the sacrament of the body is after a certain manner the body. With this agrees another well-known passage, "The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body when he gave the sign," (Cont. Adimant. Manich. cap. 12.)

They again object that Augustine says distinctly that the body of Christ falls upon the earth, and enters the mouth. But this is in the same sense in which he affirms that it is consumed, for he conjoins both at the same time. There is nothing repugnant to this in his saying that the bread is consumed after the mystery is performed: for he had said a little before "As these things are known to men, when they are done by men they may receive honour as being religious, but not as being wonderful," (De Trinity. Lib. 3 c. 10.)

His meaning is not different in the passage which our opponents too rashly appropriate to themselves, viz., that Christ in a manner carried himself in his own hands when he held out the mystical bread to his disciples. For by interposing the expressions "in a manner", he declares that he was not really or truly included under the bread. Nor is it strange, since he elsewhere plainly contends, that bodies could not be without particular localities, and being nowhere would have no existence. It is a paltry cavil that he is not there treating of the Supper, in which God exerts a special power. The question had been raised as to the flesh of Christ, and the holy man professedly replying, says, "Christ gave immortality to his flesh, but did not destroy its nature. In regard to this form, we are not to suppose that it is everywhere diffused; for we must beware not to rear up the divinity of the man, so as to take away the reality of the body. It does not follow that that which is in God is everywhere as God," (Ep. ad Dardan.) He immediately subjoins the reason, "One person is God and man, and both one Christ, everywhere, inasmuch as he is God, and in heaven, inasmuch as he is man." How careless would it have been not to except the mystery of the Supper, a matter so grave and serious, if it was in any respect adverse to the doctrine which he was handling? And yet, if any one will attentively read what follows shortly after, he will find that under that general doctrine the Supper also is comprehended, that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and also Son of man, is everywhere wholly present as God, in the temple of God, that is, in the Church, as an inhabiting God, and in some place in heaven, because of the dimensions of his real body. We see how, in order to unite Christ with the Church, he does not bring his body out of heaven. This he certainly would have done had the body of Christ not been truly our food, unless when included under the bread.

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, he says, "You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the meat and drink of the altar," (Tract. in Joann. 50.) How rightly he enumerates a superstitious rite, among the symbols of Christ's presence, I dispute not; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he has no idea of a twofold body of Christ, one lurking concealed under the bread, and another sitting visible in heaven. If there is any need of explanation, it is immediately added, "In respect of the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always: in respect of the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, 'Me ye have not always.'"

They object that he also adds, "In respect of ineffable and invisible grace is fulfilled what was said by him, 'I am with you always, even to the end of the world.'" (Matt. 28:20). But this is nothing in their favour. For it is at length restricted to his majesty, which is always opposed to body while the flesh is expressly distinguished from grace and virtue. The same antithesis elsewhere occurs, when he says that "Christ left the disciples in bodily presence, that he might be with them in spiritual presence." Here it is clear that the essence of the flesh is distinguished from the virtue of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, when, in respect of space, we are at a great distance from him. He repeatedly uses the same mode of expression, as when he says, "He is to come to the quick and the dead in bodily presence, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine: for in spiritual presence he was to come to them, and to be with the whole Church in the world until its consummation. Therefore, this discourse is directed to believers, whom he had begun already to save by corporeal presence, and whom he was to leave in corporeal absence, that by spiritual presence he might preserve them with the Father." By corporeal to understand visible is mere trifling, since he both opposes his body to his divine power, and by adding, that he might "preserve them with the Father," clearly expresses that he sends his grace to us from heaven by means of the Spirit.

29. On the reality of Christ's body

Since they put so much confidence in this hiding place of invisible presence, let us see how well they conceal themselves in it.

First, they cannot produce a syllable from Scripture to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted what no sound man will admit, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the Supper, unless covered with the mask of bread. This is the very point in dispute, so far is it from occupying the place of a first principle.

And while they thus prate, they are forced to give Christ a twofold body, because, according to them, it is visible in itself in heaven, but in the Supper is invisible, by a special mode of dispensation. The beautiful consistency of this may easily be judged, both from other passages of Scripture, and from the testimony of Peter. Peter says that the heavens must receive, or contain Christ, till he come again, (Acts 3: 21.) These men teach that he is in every place, but without form. They say that it is unfair to subject a glorious body to the ordinary laws of nature.

But this answer draws along with it the delirious dream of Servetus, which all pious minds justly abhor, that his body was absorbed by his divinity. I do not say that this is their opinion; but if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature.

Again, if the body of Christ is so multiform and diversified, that it appears in one place, and in another is invisible, where is there any thing of the nature of body with its proper dimensions, and where is its unity? Far more correct is Tertullian, who contends that the body of Christ was natural and real, because its figure is set before us in the mystery of the Supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual life, (Tertull. Cont. Marc. Lib. 4.) And certainly Christ said of his glorified body, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," (Luke 24: 39.) Here, by the lips of Christ himself, the reality of his flesh is proved, by its admitting of being seen and handled. Take these away and it will cease to be flesh.

They always retake themselves to their lurkingplace of dispensations which they have fabricated. But it is our duty so to embrace what Christ absolutely declares, as to give it an unreserved assent. He proves that he is not a phantom, because he is visible in his flesh. Take away what he claims as proper to the nature of his body, and must not a new definition of body be devised?

Then, however they may turn themselves about they will not find any place for their fictitious dispensation in that passage, in which Paul says, that "our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3: 20, 21.) We are not to hope for conformity to Christ in these qualities which they ascribe to him as a body, without bounds, and invisible. They will not find any one so stupid as to be persuaded of this great absurdity. Let them not, therefore, set it down as one of the properties of Christ's glorious body, that it is, at the same time, in many places, and in no place. In short, let them either openly deny the resurrection of his flesh, or admit that Christ, when invested with celestial glory did not lay aside his flesh, but is to make us, in our flesh, his associates, and partakers of the same glory, since we are to have a common resurrection with him. For what does Scripture throughout deliver more clearly than that, as Christ assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin, and suffered in our true flesh when he made satisfaction for us, so on rising again he resumed the same true flesh, and carried it with him to heaven? The hope of our resurrection, and ascension to heaven, is, that Christ rose again and ascended, and, as Tertullian says, (De Resurrect. Carnis,) "Carried an earnest of our resurrection along with him into heaven." Moreover, how weak and fragile would this hope be, had not this very flesh of ours in Christ been truly raised up, and entered into the kingdom of heaven. But the essential properties of a body are to be confined by space, to have dimension and form. Have done then with that foolish fiction, which affixes the minds of men, as well as Christ, to bread.

For to what end this occult presence under the bread, save that those who wish to have Christ conjoined with them may stop short at the symbol? But our Lord himself wished us to withdraw not only our eyes but all our senses from the earth, forbidding the woman to touch him until he had ascended to the Father, (John 20: 17.) When he sees Mary, with pious reverential zeal hastening to kiss his feet, there could be no reason for his disapproving and forbidding her to touch him before he had ascended to heaven, unless he wished to be sought nowhere else.

The objection, that he afterwards appeared to Stephen (Acts 7:55), is easily answered. It was not necessary for our Saviour to change his place, as he could give the eyes of his servant a power of vision which could penetrate to heaven. The same account is to be given of the case of Paul (Acts 9:4).

The objection, that Christ came forth from the closed sepulchre, and came in to his disciples while the doors were shut, (Matth. 28: 6; John 20: 19,) gives no better support to their error. For as the water, just as if it had been a solid pavement, furnished a path to our Saviour when he walked on it, (Matt. 14,) so it is not strange that the hard stone yielded to his step; although it is more probable that the stone was removed at his command, and forthwith, after giving him a passage, returned to its place. To enter while the doors were shut, was not so much to penetrate through solid matter, as to make a passage for himself by divine power, and stand in the midst of his disciples in a most miraculous manner.

They gain nothing by quoting the passage from Luke, in which it is said, that Christ suddenly vanished from the eyes of the disciples, with whom he had journeyed to Emmaus, (Luke 24: 31.) In withdrawing from their sight, he did not become invisible: he only disappeared. Thus Luke declares that, on the journey with them, he did not assume a new form, but that "their eyes were holden." But these men not only transform Christ that he may live on the earth, but pretend that there is another elsewhere of a different description. In short, by thus trifling, they, not in direct terms indeed, but by a circumlocution, make a spirit of the flesh of Christ; and, not contented with this, give him properties altogether opposite. Hence it necessarily follows that he must be twofold.

30. The ubiquity of Christ's body rejected

Granting what they absurdly talk of the invisible presence, it will still be necessary to prove the immensity, without which it is vain to attempt to include Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ can be everywhere without any boundaries of space, it is impossible to believe that he is hid in the Supper under the bread. Hence they have been under the necessity of introducing the monstrous dogma of ubiquity.

But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that it is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that its ascension into heaven made it plain that it is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied.

The promise to which they appeal, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," is not to be applied to the body. First, then, a perpetual connection with Christ could not exist, unless he dwells in us corporally, in depend entry of the use of the Supper; and, therefore, they have no good ground for disputing so bitterly concerning the words of Christ, in order to include him under the bread in the Supper. Secondly, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them. Unless we would throw every thing into confusion, must it not be necessary to distinguish the mode of presence?

And, indeed, some, to their great disgrace, choose rather to betray their ignorance than give up one iota of their error. I speak not of Papists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so hurried away by contention as to say, that on account of the union of natures in Christ, wherever his divinity is, there his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is also; as if that union formed a kind of medium of the two natures, making him to be neither God nor man. So held Eutyches, and after him Servetus. But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired. That Eutyches was justly condemned, they will not have the hardihood to deny. It is strange that they attend not to the cause of condemnation, viz., that destroying the distinction between the natures, and insisting only on the unity of person, he converted God into man and man into God. What madness, then, is it to confound heaven with earth, sooner than not withdraw the body of Christ from its heavenly sanctuary?

In regard to the passages which they adduce, "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven," John 3: 13;) "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has declared him (John 1: 18,) they betray the same stupidity, scouting the communion of properties, (idiomatum, koinonian,) which not without reason was formerly invented by holy Fathers. Certainly when Paul says of the princes of this world that they "crucified the Lord of glory," (1 Cor. 2: 8) he means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise God and the Lord of glory. In this way, both the Son of man was in heaven because he was also Christ; and he who, according to the flesh, dwelt as the Son of man on earth, was also God in heaven. For this reason, he is said to have descended from heaven in respect of his divinity, not that his divinity quitted heaven to conceal itself in the prison of the body, but because, although he filled all things, it yet resided in the humanity of Christ corporeally, that is, naturally, and in an ineffable manner. There is a trite distinction in the schools which I hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgement.

三十三至三十八、繼續駁斥羅馬教的聖餐觀和對聖餐餅酒的崇拜——從略。

33. Spiritual and, hence, actual partaking of Christ; partaking of the Lord's Supper by unbelievers

The same view must be taken of communion, which, according to them, has no existence unless they swallow the flesh of Christ under the bread. But no slight insult is offered to the Spirit if we refuse to believe that it is by his incomprehensible agency that we communicate in the body and blood of Christ. Nay, if the nature of the mystery, as delivered to us, and known to the ancient Church for four hundred years, had been considered as it deserves, there was more than enough to satisfy us; the door would have been shut against many disgraceful errors. These have kindled up fearful dissensions, by which the Church both anciently and in our own times, has been miserably vexed; curious men insisting on an extravagant mode of presence to which Scripture gives no countenance. And for a matter thus foolishly and rashly devised they keep up a turmoil, as if the including of Christ under the bread were, so to speak, the beginning and end of piety. It was of primary importance to know how the body of Christ once delivered to us becomes ours and how we become partakers of his shed blood, because this is to possess the whole of Christ crucified, so as to enjoy all his blessings. But overlooking these points, in which there was so much importance, nay, neglecting and almost suppressing them, they occupy themselves only with this one perplexing question, How is the body of Christ hidden under the bread, or under the appearance of bread?

They falsely pretend that all which we teach concerning spiritual eating is opposed to true and what they call real eating, since we have respect only to the mode of eating. This according to them, is carnal, since they include Christ under the bread, but according to us is spiritual, inasmuch as the sacred agency of the Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ.

No better founded is the other objection, that we attend only to the fruit or effect which believers receive from eating the flesh of Christ. We formerly said, that Christ himself is the matter of the Supper, and that the effect follows from this, that by the sacrifice of his death our sins are expiated, by his blood we are washed, and by his resurrection we are raised to the hope of life in heaven. But a foolish imagination, of which Lombard was the author, perverts their minds, while they think that the sacrament is the eating of the flesh of Christ. His words are, "The sacrament and not the thing are the forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and blood of Christ; the thing and not the sacrament is his mystical flesh," (Lombard, Lib. 4: Dist. 8.) 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." To his distinction between the flesh of Christ and the power of nourishing which it possesses, I assent; but his maintaining it to be a sacrament, and a sacrament contained under the bread, is an error not to be tolerated.

Hence has arisen that false interpretation of sacramental eating, because it was imagined that even the wicked and profane, however much alienated from Christ, eat his body.

But the very flesh of Christ in the mystery of the Supper is no less a spiritual matter than eternal salvation. Whence we infer, that all who are devoid of the Spirit of Christ can no more eat the flesh of Christ than drink wine that has no savour. Certainly Christ is shamefully lacerated, when his body, as lifeless and without any vigour, is prostituted to unbelievers. This is clearly repugnant to his words, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," (John 6: 56.) They object, that he is not there speaking of sacramental eating; this I admit, provided they will not ever and anon stumble on this stone, that his flesh itself is eaten without any benefit.

I should like to know how they confine it after they have eaten. Here, in my opinion, they will find no outlet. But they object, that the ingratitude of man cannot in any respect detract from, or interfere with, faith in the promises of God. I admit and hold that the power of the sacrament remains entire, however the wicked may labour with all their might to annihilate it. Still, it is one thing to be offered, another to be received. Christ gives this spiritual food and holds forth this spiritual drink to all. Some eat eagerly, others superciliously reject it. Will their rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will say that this similitude supports their opinion, viz., that the flesh of Christ, though it be without taste, is still flesh. But I deny that it can be eaten without the taste of faith, or, (if it is more agreeable to speak with Augustine,) I deny that men carry away more from the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally partaking of it, go away empty.

If, again, they object, that it derogates from the expression, "This is my body," if the wicked receive corruptible bread and nothing besides, it is easy to answer, that God wills not that his truth should be recognised in the mere reception, but in the constancy of his goodness, while he is prepared to perform, nay, liberally offers to the unworthy what they reject. The integrity of the sacrament, an integrity which the whole world cannot violate, lies here, that the flesh and blood of Christ are not less truly given to the unworthy than to the elect believers of God; and yet it is true, that just as the rain falling on the hard rock runs away, because it cannot penetrate, so the wicked by their hardness repel the grace of God, and prevent it from reaching them. We may add, that it is no more possible to receive Christ without faith, than it is for seed to germinate in the fire.

They ask how Christ can have come for the condemnation of some, unless they unworthily receive him; but this is absurd, since we nowhere read that they bring death upon themselves by receiving Christ unworthily, but by rejecting him.

They are not aided by the parable in which Christ says, that the seed which fell among thorns sprang up, but was afterwards choked, (Matth. 13: 7,) because he is there speaking of the effect of a temporary faith, a faith which those who place Judas in this respect on a footing with Peter, do not think necessary to the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ. Nay, their error is refuted by the same parable, when Christ says that some seed fell upon the wayside, and some on stony ground, and yet neither took root. Hence it follows that the hardness of believers is an obstacle which prevents Christ from reaching them.

All who would have our salvation to be promoted by this sacrament, will find nothing more appropriate than to conduct believers to the fountain (cf. John 4:6-15), that they may draw life from the Son of God. The dignity is amply enough commended when we hold, that it is a help by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, already ingrafted, may be more and more united to him, until the union is completed in heaven. They object, that Paul could not have made them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if they had not partaken of them, (1 Cor. 11: 27;) I answer, that they were not condemned for having eaten, but only for having profaned the ordinance lay trampling under foot the pledge, which they ought to have reverently received, the pledge of sacred union with God.

34. Partaking of the Lord's Supper by unbelievers, according to Augustine

Moreover, as among ancient writers, Augustine especially maintained this head of doctrine, that the grace figured by the sacraments is not impaired or made void by the infidelity or malice of men, it will be useful to prove clearly from his words, how ignorantly and erroneously those who cast forth the body of Christ to be eaten by dogs, wrest them to their present purpose. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without the agency of the Spirit, or any gracious effect. Augustine, on the contrary, prudently pondering the expression, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, has eternal life," (John 6: 54,) says: "That is the virtue of the sacrament, and not merely the visible sacrament: the sacrament of him who eats inwardly, not of him who eats outwardly, or merely with the teeth," (Hom. in Joann. 26.) Hence he at length concludes, that the sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, is set before some for life, before others for destruction; while the matter itself, of which it is the sacraments is to all for life, to none for destruction, whoever may have been the partaker. Lest any one should here cavil that by "thing" not meant body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from it, he dissipates these mists by the antithetical epithets, Visible and Invisible. For the body of Christ cannot be included under the former. Hence it follows, that unbelievers communicate only in the visible symbol; and the better to remove all doubt, after saying that this bread requires an appetite in the inner man, he adds, (Hom. in Joann. 59,) "Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and many others who ate manna, pleased God. Why? Because the visible food they understood spiritually, hungered for spiritually, tasted spiritually, and feasted on spiritually. We, too, in the present day, have received visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament is another." A little after, he says: "And hence, he who remains not in Christ, and in whom Christ remains not, without doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though with his teeth he may carnally and visibly press the symbol of his body and blood." again, we are told that the visible sign is opposed to spiritual eating. This refutes the error that the invisible body of Christ is sacramentally eaten in reality, although not spiritually. We are told, also, that nothing is given to the impure and profane beyond the visible taking of the sign. Hence his celebrated saying, that the other disciples ate bread which was the Lord, whereas Judas ate the bread of the Lord, (Hom. in Joann. 62.) By this he clearly excludes unbelievers from participation in his body and blood. He has no other meaning when he says, "Why do you wonder that the bread of Christ was given to Judas, though he consigned him to the devil, when you see, on the contrary, that a messenger of the devil was given to Paul to perfect him in Christ?"(II Cor. 12:7) (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5.) He indeed says elsewhere, that the bread of the Supper was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; and that it does not follow that they received nothing because they received unworthily."(I Cor. 11:29). But in what sense he says this, he explains more fully in another passage, (De Civit. Dei, Lib. 21 c. 25.) For undertaking professedly to explains how the wicked and profane, who, with the mouth, profess the faith of Christ, but in act deny him, eat the body of Christ; and, indeed, refuting the opinion of some who thought that they ate not only sacramentally, but really, he says: "Neither can they be said to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted among the members of Christ. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at the same time the members of Christ and the members of a harlot (I Cor. 6:15). In fine, when Christ himself says, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," (John 6: 56,) he shows what it is to eat the body of Christ, not sacramentally, but in reality. It is to abide in Christ, that Christ may abide in him. For it is just as if he had said, Let not him who abides not in me, and in whom I abide not, say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood."

Let the reader attend to the antithesis between eating sacramentally and eating really, and there will be no doubt. The same thing he confirms not less clearly in these words: &quotrepare not the jaws, but the heart; for which alone the Supper is appointed. We believe in Christ when we receive him in faith; in receiving, we allow what we think: we receive a small portion, but our heart is filled: it is not therefore that which is seen, but that which is believed, that feeds," (August. Cont. Faust. Lib. 13 c. 16.) Here, also, he restricts what the wicked take to the visible sign, and shows that the only way of receiving Christ is by faith. So, also, in another passage, declaring distinctly that the good and the bad communicate by signs, he excludes the latter from the true eating of the flesh of Christ. For had they received the reality, he would not have been altogether silent as to a matter which was pertinent to the case. In another passage, speaking of eating, and the fruit of it, he thus concludes: "Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to each, if that which is visibly taken in the sacrament is in reality spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk," (De Verb. Apost. Serm. 2.) Let those, therefore, who make unbelievers partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, if they would agree with Augustine, set before us the visible body of Christ, since, according to him the whole truth is spiritual. And certainly his words imply that sacramental eating when unbelief excludes the entrance of the reality, is only equivalent to visible or external eating. But if the body of Christ may be truly and yet not spiritually eaten, what could he mean when he elsewhere says: "Ye are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which will be shed by those who are to crucify me? I have committed a certain sacrament to you: it is the spiritual meaning which will give you life," (August. in Ps. 98.) He certainly meant not to deny that the body offered in the Supper is the same as that which Christ offered in sacrifice; but he adverted to the mode of eating, viz., that the body, though received into the celestial glory, breathes life into us by the secret energy of the Spirit. I admit, indeed, that he often uses the expression, "that the body of Christ is eaten by unbelievers;" but he explains himself by adding, "in the sacrament." And he elsewhere speaks of a spiritual eating, in which our teeth do not chew grace, (Hom. in Joann. 27.) And, lest my opponents should say that I am trying to overwhelm them with the mass of my quotations, I would ask how they get over this one sentence: "In the elect alone, the sacraments effect what they figure." Certainly they will not venture to deny, that by the bread in the Supper, the body of Christ is figured. Hence it follows, that the reprobate are not allowed to partake of it. That Cyril did not think differently, is clear from these words: "As one in pouring melted wax on melted wax mixes the whole together, so it is necessary, when one receives the body and blood of the Lord, to be conjoined with him, that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ." From these words, I think it plain that there is no true and real eating by those Who only eat the body of Christ sacramentally, seeing the body cannot be separated from its virtue, and that the promises of God do not fail, though, while he ceases not to rain from heaven, rocks and stones are not penetrated by the moisture.

(Superstitious adoration of the elements excluded, 35-37)
35. Adoration of the elements rejected

This consideration will easily dissuade us from that carnal adoration which some men have, with perverse temerity, introduced into the sacrament, reasoning thus with themselves: If it is body, then it is also soul and divinity which go along with the body and cannot be separated from it, and, therefore, Christ must there be adored.

First, if we deny their pretended concomitance, what will they do? For, as they chiefly insist on the absurdity of separating the body of Christ from his soul and divinity, what sane and sober man can persuade himself that the body of Christ is Christ? They think that they completely establish this by their syllogisms. But since Christ speaks separately of his body and blood, without describing the mode of his presence, how can they in a doubtful matter arrive at the certainty which they wish? What then? Should their consciences be at any time exercised with some more grievous apprehension, will they forthwith set them free, and dissolve the apprehension by their syllogisms? In other words, when they see that no certainty is to be obtained from the word of God, in which alone our minds can rest, and without which they go astray the very first moment when they begin to reason, when they see themselves opposed by the doctrine and practice of the apostles, and that they are supported by no authority but their own, how will they feel? To such feelings other sharp stings will be added. What? Was it a matter of little moment to worship God under this form without any express injunction? In a matter relating to the true worship of God, were we thus lightly to act without one Word of Scripture? Had all their thoughts been kept in due subjection to the word of God, they certainly would have listened to what he himself has said, "Take, eat, and drink," and obeyed the command by which he enjoins us to receive the sacrament, not worship it.

Those who receive, without adoration, as commanded by God, are secure that they deviate not from the command. In commencing any work, nothing is better than this security. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read not that they prostrated themselves and worshipped, but that they sat down, took and ate. They have the practice of the apostolic Church, where, as Luke relates, believers communicated not in adoration, but in the breaking of bread, (Acts 2: 42.) They have the doctrine of the apostles as taught to the Corinthian Church by Paul, who declares that what he delivered he had received of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11: 23.)

36. Superstition and idolatry in such adoration

The object of these remarks is to lead pious readers to reflect how dangerous it is in matters of such difficulty to wander from the simple word of God to the dreams of our own brain. What has been said above should free us from all scruple in this matter. That the pious soul may duly apprehend Christ in the sacrament, it must rise to heaven. But if the office of the sacrament is to aid the infirmity of the human mind, assisting it in rising upwards, so as to perceive the height of spiritual mysteries those who stop short at the external sign stray from the right path of seeking Christ. What then? Can we deny that the worship is superstitious when men prostrate themselves before bread that they may therein worship Christ? The Council of Nice undoubtedly intended to meet this evil when it forbade us to give humble heed to the visible signs. And for no other reason was it formerly the custom, previous to consecration, to call aloud upon the people to raise their hearts, "sursum corda". Scripture itself, also, besides carefully narrating the ascension of Christ, by which he withdrew his bodily presence from our eye and company, that it might make us abandon all carnal thoughts of him, whenever it makes mention of him, enjoins us to raise our minds upwards and seek him in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, (Col. 3: 2.) According to this rule, we should rather have adored him spiritually in the heavenly glory, than devised that perilous species of adoration replete with gross and carnal ideas of God.

Those, therefore, who devised the adoration of the sacrament, not only dreamed it of themselves without any authority from Scripture, where no mention of it can be shown, (it would not have been omitted, had it been agreeable to God;) but, disregarding scripture, forsook the living God, and fabricated a god for themselves, after the lust of their own hearts. For what is idolatry if it is not to worship the gifts instead of the giver? Here the sin is twofold. The honour robbed from God is transferred to the creature, and God moreover, is dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of his own goodness, while his holy sacrament is converted into an execrable idol. Let us, on the contrary, that we may not fall into the same pit, wholly confine our eyes, ears, hearts, minds, and tongues, to the sacred doctrine of God. For this is the school of the Holy Spirit, that best of masters, in which such progress is made, that while nothing is to be acquired any where else, we must willingly be ignorant of whatever is not there taught.

37. Superstitious rites with the consecrated host

Then, as superstition, when once it has passed the proper bounds, has no end to its errors, men went much farther; for they devised rites altogether alien from the institution of the Supper, and to such a degree that they paid divine honours to the sign. They say that their veneration is paid to Christ. First, if this were done in the Supper, I would say that that adoration only is legitimate which stops not at the sign, but rises to Christ sitting in heaven. Now, under what pretext do they say that they honour Christ in that bread, when they have no promise of this nature? They consecrate the host, as they call it, and carry it about in solemn show, and formally exhibit it to be admired, reverenced, and invoked. I ask by what virtue they think it duly consecrated? They will quote the words, "This is my body." I, on the contrary, will object, that it was at the same time said, "Take, eat." Nor will I count the other passage as nothing; for I hold that since the promise is annexed to the command, the former is so included under the latter, that it cannot possibly be separated from it. This will be made clearer by an example. God gave a command when he said, "Call upon me," and added a promise, "I will deliver thee," (Psal. 50: 15.) Should any one invoke Peter or Paul, and found on this promise, will not all exclaim that he does it in error? And what else, pray, do those do who, disregarding the command to eat, fasten on the mutilated promise, "This is my body," that they may pervert it to rites alien from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, therefore, that this promise has been given to those who observe the command connected with it, and that those who transfer the sacrament to another end, have no countenance from the word of God.

We formerly showed how the mystery of the sacred Supper contributes to our faith in God. But since the Lord not only reminds us of this great gift of his goodness, as we formerly explained, but passes it, as it were, from hand to hand, and urges us to recognise it, he, at the same time, admonishes us not to be ungrateful for the kindness thus bestowed, but rather to proclaim it with such praise as is meet, and celebrate it with thanksgiving. Accordingly, when he delivered the institution of the sacrament to the apostles, he taught them to do it in remembrance of him, which Paul interprets, "to show forth his death," (1 Cor. 11: 26.) And this is that all should publicly and with one mouth confess that all our confidence of life and salvation is placed in our Lord's death, that we ourselves may glorify him by our confession, and by our example excite others also to give him glory. Here, again, we see what the aim of the sacrament is, namely, to keep us in remembrance of Christ's death. When we are ordered to show forth the Lord's death till he come again, all that is meant is, that we should with confession of the mouth, proclaim what our faith has recognised in the sacrament, viz., that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use of the sacrament, and relates to outward confession.

(Points of special emphasis: mutual love; the accompaniment of preaching; medicine for sick souls; worthy partaking; suitable form and the frequency of administration, 38-46)
38. The Lord's Supper implies mutual love

Thirdly, The Lord intended it to be a kind of exhortation, than which no other could urge or animate us more strongly, both to purity and holiness of life, and also to charity, peace, and concord. For the Lord there communicates his body so that he may become altogether one with us, and we with him. Moreover, since he has only one body of which he makes us all to be partakers, we must necessarily, by this participation, all become one body. This unity is represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. As it is composed of many grains, so mingled together, that one cannot be distinguished from another; so ought our minds to be so cordially united, as not to allow of any dissension or division. This I prefer giving in the words 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," (1 Cor. 10: 15, 16.) We shall have profited admirably in the sacrament, if the thought shall have been impressed and engraven on our minds, that none of our brethren is hurt, despised, rejected, injured, or in any way offended, without our, at the same time, hurting, despising, and injuring Christ; that we cannot have dissension with our brethren, without at the same time dissenting from Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving our brethren; that the same care we take of our own body we ought to take of that of our brethren, who are members of our body; that as no part of our body suffers pain without extending to the other parts, so every evil which our brother suffers ought to excite our compassion. Wherefore Augustine not inappropriately often terms this sacrament the bond of charity. What stronger stimulus could be employed to excite mutual charity, than when Christ, presenting himself to us, not only invites us by his example to give and devote ourselves mutually to each other, but inasmuch as he makes himself common to all, also makes us all to be one in him.

　四十五至四十八、駁斥教皇所頒一年一次領聖餐令，和只將餅給平信徒之非——從略。

45. Augustine and Chrysostom on the duty of participation

By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion, as handed down by the apostles themselves; and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies: "The sacrament of the unity of our Lord's body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord's table; and at that table some partake to life, and others to destruction," (August. Tract. 26, in Joann. 6.) And in the first Epistle to Januarius he says: "Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord; others receive it on certain days: in some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered; in others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord's day: in others, on the Lord's day only." But since, as we have said, the people were sometimes remiss, holy men urged them with severe rebukes, that they might not seem to connive at their sluggishness. Of this we have an example in Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Hom. 26.) "It was not said to him who dishonoured the feast, Why have you taken your seat? But how camest thou in?" (Matth. 22: 12.) Whoever partakes not of the sacred rites is wicked and impudent in being present: should any one who was invited to a feast come in, wash his hands, take his seat, and seem to prepare to eat, and thereafter taste nothing, would he not, I ask, insult both the feast and the entertainer? So you, standing among those who prepare themselves by prayer to take the sacred food, profess to be one of the number by the mere fact of your not going away, and yet you do not partake, - would it not have been better not to have made your appearance? I am unworthy, you say. Then neither were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which is the preparation for taking the sacred mystery."

46. Communicating only once a year condemned

Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of the decree, though it is not possible to believe that it was the same as we now have it. It may be, that as times then were, he did not, by his ordinance, consult ill for the Church. For there cannot be a doubt that at that time the sacred Supper was dispensed to the faithful at every meeting; nor can it be doubted that a great part of them communicated. But as it scarcely ever happened that all could communicate at the same time, and it was necessary that those who were mingled with the profane and idolaters, should testify their faith by some external symbol, this holy man, with a view to order and government, had appointed that day, that on it the whole of Christendom might give a confession of their faith by partaking of the Lord's Supper. The ordinance of Zephyrinus, which was otherwise good, posterity perverted, when they made a fixed law of one communion in the year. The consequence is, that almost all, when they have once communicated as if they were discharged as to all the rest of the year, sleep on secure. It ought to have been far otherwise. Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually feed. No one, indeed, ought to be forced, but all ought to be exhorted and stimulated; the torpor of the sluggish, also ought to be rebuked that all, like persons famishing, should come to the feast. It was not without cause, therefore, I complained, at the outset, that this practice had been introduced by the wile of the devil; a practice which, in prescribing one day in the year, makes the whole year one of sloth. We see, indeed, that this perverse abuse had already crept in in the time of Chrysostom; but we, also, at the same time, see how much it displeased him. For he complains in bitter terms, in the passage which I lately quoted, that there is so great an inequality in this matter, that they did not approach often, at other times of the year, even when prepared, but only at Easter, though unprepared. Then he exclaims: "O custom! O presumption! In vain then, is the daily oblation made: in vain do we stand at the altar. There is none who partakes along with us." So far is he from having approved the practice by interposing his authority to it.

(Withdrawal of the cup from the lay people condemned, 47-50)
47. Refutation of "communion in one kind"

From the same forge proceeded another constitution, which snatched or robbed a half of the Supper from the greater part of the people of God, namely the symbol of blood, which, interdicted to laics and profane, (such are the titles which they give to God's heritage (I Peter 5:3),) became the peculiar possession of a few shaven and anointed individuals. The edict of the eternal God is, that all are to drink (Matt. 26:27). This an upstart dares to antiquate and abrogate by a new and contrary law, proclaiming that all are not to drink.

And that such legislators may not seem to fight against their God without any ground, they make a pretext of the dangers which might happen if the sacred cup were given indiscriminately to all: as if these had not been observed and provided for by the eternal wisdom of God.

Then they reason acutely, forsooth, that the one is sufficient for the two. For if the body is, as they say, the whole Christ, who cannot be separated from his body, then the blood includes the body by concomitance. Here we see how far our sense accords with God, when to any extent whatever it begins to rage and wanton with loosened reins. The Lord pointing to the bread says, "This is my body." Then pointing to the cup, he calls it his blood. The audacity of human reason objects and says, The bread is the blood, the wine is the body, as if the Lord had without reason distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and signs; and it had ever been heard that the body of Christ or the blood is called God and man. Certainly, if he had meant to designate himself wholly he might have said, It is I, according to the Scriptural mode of expression, and not "This is my body," "This is my blood." But wishing to succour the weakness of our faith, he placed the cup apart from the bread, to show that he suffices not less for drink than for food. Now, if one part be taken away, we can only find the half of the elements in what remains. Therefore, though it were true, as they pretend, that the blood is in the bread, and, on the other hand, the body in the cup, by concomitance, yet they deprive the pious of that confirmation of faith which Christ delivered as necessary. Bidding adieu, therefore, to their subtleties, let us retain the advantage which, by the ordinance of Christ, is obtained by a double pledge.

48.False argument that the apostles only as "sacrificers" received the cup

I am aware, indeed, how the ministers of Satan, whose usual practice is to hold the Scriptures in derisions here cavil. First, they allege that from a simple fact we are not to draw a rule which is to be perpetually obligatory on the Church. But they state an untruth when they call it a simple fact. For Christ not only gave the cup, but appointed that the apostles should do so in future. For his words contain the command, "Drink ye all of it." And Paul relates, that it was so done, and recommends it as a fixed institution (I Cor. 11:25).

Another subterfuge is, that the apostles alone were admitted by Christ to partake of this sacred Supper, because he had already selected and chosen them to the priesthood.

I wish they would answer the five following questions, which they cannot evade, and which easily refute them and their lies.

First, By what oracle was this solution so much at variance with the word of God revealed to them? Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus, but it does not so derogate from the dignity of Christ as to call them priests. Of this appellation we shall afterwards speak in its own place. Although he then gave to twelve, he commanded them to "do this;" in other words, to distribute thus among themselves.

Secondly, Why during that purer age, from the days of the apostles downward for a thousand years, did all, without exception, partake of both symbols? Did the primitive Church not know who the guests were whom Christ would have admitted to his Supper? It were the most shameless impudence to carp and quibble here. We have extant ecclesiastical histories, we have the writings of the Fathers, which furnish clear proofs of this fact. "The flesh," says Tertullian, "feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be satiated by God," (Tertull. de Resort. Carnis.) "How," said Ambrose to Theodosius, "will you receive the sacred body of the Lord with such hands? how will you have the boldness to put the cup of precious blood to your lips?" Jerome speaks of "the priests who perform the Eucharist and distribute the Lord's blood to the people," (Heron. in Malach. cap. 2.) Chrysostom says, "Not as under the ancient law the priest ate a part and the people a part, but one body and one cup is set before all. All the things which belong to the Eucharist are common to the priest and the people," (Chrysost. in Cor. cap. 8, Hom. 18.) The same thing is attested by Augustine in numerous passages.

Chapter 17.

17. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, AND THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY IT.
This chapter is divided into two principal heads. -
I. The first part shows what it is that God exhibits in the Holy Supper, sec. 1-4; and then in what way and how far it becomes ours, sec. 5-11.
II. The second part is chiefly occupied with a refutation of the errors which superstition has introduced in regard to the Lord's Supper:
And, first, Transubstantiation is refuted, sec. 12-15.
Next, Consubstantiation and Ubiquity, sec. 16-19.
Thirdly, It is shown that the institution itself is opposed to those hyperbolical doctors, sec. 20-25.
Fourth, The orthodox view is confirmed by other arguments derived from Scripture, sec. 26, 27.
Fifth, The authority of the Fathers is shown to support the same view.
Sixth, The presence for which opponents contend is overthrown, and another presence established, sec. 29-32.
Seventh, What the nature of our communion ought to be, sec. 33, 34.
Eighth, The adoration introduced by opponents refuted. For what end the Lord's Supper was instituted, sec. 35-39.
Lastly, The examination of communicants is considered, sec. 40-42. Of the eternal rites to be observed. Of frequent communion in both kinds. Objections refuted, sec. 43-50.


Sections.

Why the Holy Supper was instituted by Christ. The knowledge of the sacrament, how necessary. The signs used. Why there are no others appointed.
The manifold uses and advantages of this sacrament to the pious.
The Lords Supper exhibits the great blessings of redemption, and even Christ himself. This even evident from the words of the institution. The thing specially to be considered in them. Congruity of the signs and the things signified.
The chief parts of this sacrament.
How Christ, the Bread of Life, is to be received by us. Two faults to be avoided. The receiving of it must bear reference both to faith and the effect of faith. What meant by eating Christ. In what sense Christ the bread of life.
This mode of eating confirmed by the authority of Augustine and Chrysostom.
It is not sufficient, while omitting all mention of flesh and blood, to recognise this communion merely as spiritual. It is impossible fully to comprehend it in the present life.
In explanation of it, it may be observed,
I. There is no life at all save in Christ.
II. Christ has life in a twofold sense; first, in himself; as he is God; and, secondly, by transfusing it into the flesh which he assumed, that he might thereby communicate life to us.
This confirmed from Cyril, and by a familiar example. How the flesh of Christ gives life, and what the nature of our communion with Christ.
No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacraments.
Conclusion of the first part of the chapter. The sacrament of the Supper consists of two parts, viz., corporeal signs, and spiritual truth. These comprehend the meaning, matter, and effect. Christ truly exhibited to us by symbols.
Second part of the chapter, reduced to nine heads. The transubstantiation of the Papists considered and refuted. Its origin and absurdity. Why it should be exploded.
Transubstantiation as feigned by the Schoolmen. Refutation. The many superstitions introduced by their error.
The fiction of transubstantiation why invented contrary to Scripture, and the consent of antiquity. The term transubstantiation never used in the early Church. Objection. Answer.
The error of transubstantiation favoured by the consecration, which was a kind of magical incantation. The bread is not a sacrament to itself, but to those who receive it. The changing of the rod of Moses into a serpent gives no countenance to Popish transubstantiation. No resemblance between it and the words of institution in the Supper. Objection. Answer.
Refutation of consubstantiation; whence the idea of ubiquity.
This ubiquity confounds the natures of Christ. Subtleties answered.
Absurdities collected with consubstantiation. Candid exposition of the orthodox view.
The nature of the true presence of Christ in the Supper. The true and substantial communion of the body and blood of the Lord. This orthodox view assailed by turbulent spirits.
This view vindicated from their calumnies. The words of the institution explained in opposition to the glosses of transubstantiators and consubstantiators. Their subterfuges and absurd blasphemies.
Why the name of the thing signified is given to the sacramental symbols. This illustrated by passages of Scripture; also by a passage of Augustine.
Refutation of an objection founded on the words, "This is". Objection answered.
Other objections answered.
Other objections answered. No question here as to the omnipotence of God.
Other objections answered.
The orthodox view further confirmed. I. By a consideration of the reality of Christ's body. II. From our Saviour's declaration that he would always be in the world. This confirmed by the exposition of Augustine.
Refutation of the sophisms of the Ubiquitists. The evasion of visible and invisible presence refuted.
The authority of Fathers not in favour of these errors as to Christ's presence. Augustine opposed to them.
Refutation of the invisible presence maintained by opponents. Refutation from Tertullian, from a saying of Christ after his resurrection, from the definition of a true body, and from different passages of Scripture.
Ubiquity refuted by various arguments.
The imaginary presence of Transubstantiators, Consubstantiators, and Ubiquitists, contrasted with the orthodox doctrine.
The nature of our Saviour's true presence explained. The mode of it incomprehensible.
Our communion in the blood and flesh of Christ. Spiritual not oral, and yet real. Erroneous view of the Schoolmen.
This view not favoured by Augustine. How the wicked eat the body of Christ. Cyril's sentiments as to the eating of the body of Christ.
Absurdity of the adoration of sacramental symbols.
This adoration condemned.
I. By Christ himself.
II. By the Council of Nicaea.
III. By ancient custom.
IV. By Scripture. This adoration is mere idolatry.
This adoration inconsistent with the nature and institution of the sacrament. Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.
Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.
True nature of the sacrament contrasted with the Popish observance of it.
Nature of an unworthy approach to the Lord's table. The great danger of it. The proper remedy in serious self-examination.
The spurious examination introduced by the Papists. Refutation.
The nature of Christian examination.
External rites in the administration of the Supper. Many of them indifferent.
Duty of frequent communion. This proved by the practice of the Church in its purer state, and by the canons of the early bishops.
Frequent communion in the time of Augustine. The neglect of it censured by Chrysostom.
The Popish injunction to communicate once a year an execrable invention.
Communion in one kind proved to be an invention of Satan.
Subterfuges of the Papists refuted.
The practice of the early Church further considered.
Conclusion.
(The Lord's Supper, with the signs of bread and wine, provides spiritual food, 1-3)
1. Sign and thing

After God has once received us into his family, it is not that he may regard us in the light of servants, but of sons, performing the part of a kind and anxious parent, and providing for our maintenance during the whole course of our lives. And, not contented with this, he has been pleased by a pledge to assure us of his continued liberality. To this end, he has given another sacrament to his Church by the hand of his only begotten Son, viz., a spiritual feast, at which Christ testifies that he himself is living bread, (John 6: 51,) on which our souls feed, for a true and blessed immortality.

Now, as the knowledge of this great mystery is most necessary, and, in proportion to its importance, demands an accurate exposition, and Satan, in order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago introduced, first, mists, and then darkness, to obscure its light, and stirred up strife and contention to alienate the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our age, also, has tried the same artifice, I will proceed, after giving a simple summary adapted to the capacity of the ignorant, to explain those difficulties by which Satan has tried to ensnare the world.

First, then, the signs are bread and wine, which represent the invisible food which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word.

Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.

But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. We now therefore, understand the end which this mystical benediction has in view, viz., to assure us that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice, - that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added, "Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you," (Matth. 26: 26, &c.) The body which was once offered for our salvation we are enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred blood as drink to us.

2. Union with Christ as the special fruit of the Lord's Supper

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

3. The Spiritual presence of Christ

To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive - Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation.

And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you. It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation. Wherefore they are represented under bread and wine, that we may learn that they are not only ours but intended to nourish our spiritual life; that is, as we formerly observed, by the corporeal things which are produced in the sacrament, we are by a kind of analogy conducted to spiritual things.

Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us.

(The promise sealed in the Supper as we are made partakers of Christ's flesh - a mystery felt rather than explained, 4-7)
4. The meaning of the promise of the Lord's Supper

Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever - I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption.

5. How are we partakers by faith

It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, "The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (John 6: 51; cf. ch.6:52) doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates.

Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries themselves.

That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life.

Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined. but there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine. According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them, eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, (Eph. 3: 17,) no one will interpret that dwelling to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith, because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.

6. Augustine and Chrysostom on this

When Augustine, whom they claim as their patron, wrote, that we eat by believing, all he meant was to indicate that that eating is of faith, and not of the mouth. This I deny not; but I at the same time add, that by faith we embrace Christ, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting himself to us, he being our head, and we his members. I do not absolutely disapprove of that mode of speaking; I only deny that it is a full interpretation, if they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ. I see that Augustine repeatedly used this form of expression, as when he said, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3,) "Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man" is a figurative expression enjoining us to have communion with our Lord's passion, and sweetly and usefully to treasure in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us." Also when he says, "These three thousand men who were converted at the preaching of Peter, (Acts 2: 41,) by believing, drank the blood which they had cruelly shed." But in very many other passages he admirably commends faith for this, that by means of it our souls are not less refreshed by the communion of the blood of Christ, than our bodies with the bread which they eat. The very same thing is said by Chrysostom, "Christ makes us his body, not by faith only, but in reality." He does not mean that we obtain this blessing from any other quarter than from faith: he only intends to prevent any one from thinking of mere imagination when he hears the name of faith.

I say nothing of those who hold that the Supper is merely a mark of external professions because I think I sufficiently refuted their error when I treated of the sacraments in general, (Chap. 14. sec. 13.) Only let my readers observe, that when the cup is called the covenant in blood, (Luke 22: 20,) the promise which tends to confirm faith is expressed. Hence it follows, that unless we have respect to God, and embrace what he offers, we do not make a right use of the sacred Supper.

7. Thought and words inadequate

I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion with these hyperbolical doctors, who, according to their gross ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehends or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.

(This life-giving communion is brought about by the Holy Spirit, 8-10)
8. Christ makes his abode in our flesh

First of all, we are taught by the Scriptures that Christ was from the beginning the living Word of the Father (John 1:1), the fountain and origin of life, from which all things should always receive life. Hence John at one time calls him the Word of life (I John 1:1), and at another says, that in him was life (John 1:4); intimating, that he, even then pervading all creatures, instilled into them the power of breathing and living.

He afterwards adds, that the life was at length manifested, when the Son of God, assuming our nature, exhibited himself in bodily form to be seen and handled (I John 1:2). For although he previously diffused his virtue into the creatures, yet as man, because alienated from God by sin, had lost the communication of life, and saw death on every side impending over him, he behaved, in order to regain the hope of immortality, to be restored to the communion of that Word. How little confidence can it give you, to know that the Word of God, from which you are at the greatest distance, contains within himself the fulness of life, whereas in yourself, in whatever direction you turn, you see nothing but death? But ever since that fountain of life began to dwell in our nature, he no longer lies hid at a distance from us, but exhibits himself openly for our participation. Nay, the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. "I," says he, "am that bread of life;" "I am the living bread 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," (John 6: 48, 51.) By these words he declares, not only that he is life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God who came down to us from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh which he assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate.

Hence, too, he adds, that his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is drink indeed: by this food believers are reared to eternal life. The pious, therefore, have admirable comfort in this, that they now find life in their own flesh. For they not only reach it by easy access, but have it spontaneously set forth before them. Let them only throw open the door of their hearts that they may take it into their embrace, and they will obtain it.

9. Sense in which Christ's body is life-giving

The flesh of Christ, however, has not such power in itself as to make us live, seeing that by its own first condition it was subject to mortality, and even now, when endued with immortality, lives not by itself. Still it is properly said to be life-giving, as it is pervaded with the fulness of life for the purpose of transmitting it to us. In this sense I understand our Saviour's words as Cyril interprets them, "As the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son to have life in himself," (John 5: 26.) For there properly he is speaking not of the properties which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of those with which he was invested in the flesh in which he appeared. Accordingly, he shows that in his humanity also fulness of life resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the participation of life.

The nature of this may be explained by a familiar example. As water is at one time drunk out of the fountain, at another drawn, at another led away by conduits to irrigate the fields, and yet does not flow forth of itself for all these uses, but is taken from its source, which, with perennial flow, ever and anon sends forth a new and sufficient supply; so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life?

Hence those passages of the apostle: The Church is the "body" of Christ; his "fulness." He is "the head," "from whence the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth," "maketh increase of the body," (Eph. 1: 23; 4: 15, 16.) Our bodies "are the members of Christ," (1 Cor. 6: 15.) We perceive that all these things cannot possibly take place unless he adheres to us wholly in body and spirit. But the very close connection which unites us to his flesh, he illustrated with still more splendid epithets, when he said that we "are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," (Eph. 5: 30.) At length, to testify that the matter is too high for utterance, he concludes with exclaiming, "This is a great mystery," (Eph. 5: 32.) It were, therefore, extreme infatuation not to acknowledge the communion of believers with the body and blood of the Lord, a communion which the apostle declares to be so great, that he chooses rather to marvel at it than to explain it.

10. The presence of Christ's body in the Lord's Supper

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood.

But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.

That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude.

For this 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?" (1 Cor. 10: 16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

(Relation of the outward sign and invisible reality variously misstated by the Schoolmen, and in the doctrine of transubstantiation, 11-15)
11. Signification, matter, and effect of the Sacrament

I hold then, (as has always been received in the Church, and is still taught by those who feel aright,) that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things - the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs.

When attempting familiarly to explain its nature, I am accustomed to set down three things - the thing meant, the matter which depends on it, and the virtue or efficacy consequent upon both. The thing meant consists in the promises which are in a manner included in the sign. By the matter, or substance, I mean Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I understand redemption, justification, sanctification, eternal life, and all the other benefits which Christ bestows upon us.

Moreover, though all these things have respect to faith, I leave no room for the cavil, that when I say Christ is conceived by faith, I mean that he is only conceived by the intellect and imagination. He is offered by the promises not that we may stop short at the sight, or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true communion with him. And, indeed, I see not how any one can expect to have redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with Christ himself. Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours.

I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

12. Spatial presence of Christ's body?

I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced. Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread.

And, first, we are not to dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the artifices of the Romish court have imagined, as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat. This was the form of Palinode, which Pope Nicholas dictated to Berengarius, in token of his repentance, a form expressed in terms so monstrous, that the author of the Gloss exclaims, that there is danger, if the reader is not particularly cautious, that he will be led by it into a worse heresy than was that of Berengarius, (Distinct. 2 c. Ego Berengarius.) Peter Lombard, though he labours much to excuse the absurdity, rather inclines to a different opinion.

As we cannot at all doubt that it is bounded according to the invariable rule in the human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, and will remain till it return to judgement, so we deem it altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it everywhere present.

And, indeed, there is no need of this, in order to our partaking of it, since the Lord by his Spirit bestows upon us the blessing of being one with him in soul, body, and spirit. The bond of that connection, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us. For if we see that the sun, in sending forth its rays upon the earth, to generate, cherish, and invigorate its offspring, in a manner transfuses its substance into it, why should the radiance of the Spirit be less in conveying to us the communion of his flesh and blood? Wherefore, the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the Spirit. Instead of many, one passage will suffice. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, (Rom. 8: 9-1l,) shows that the only way in which Christ dwells in us is by his Spirit. By this, however, he does not take away that communion of flesh and blood of which we now speak, but shows that it is owing to the Spirit alone that we possess Christ wholly, and have him abiding in us.

13. Error of the Schoolmen: bread mistaken for God

The Schoolmen, horrified at this barbarous impiety, speak more modestly, though they do nothing more than amuse themselves with more subtle delusions. They admit that Christ is not contained in the sacrament circumscriptively, or in a bodily manner, but they afterwards devise a method which they themselves do not understand, and cannot explain to others. It, however, comes to this, that Christ may be sought in what they call the species of bread. What? When they say that the substance of bread is converted into Christ, do they not attach him to the white colour, which is all they leave of it? But they say, that though contained in the sacrament, he still remains in heaven, and has no other presence there than that of abode.

But, whatever be the terms in which they attempt to make a gloss, the sum of all is, that that which was formerly bread, by consecration becomes Christ: so that Christ thereafter lies hid under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed distinctly to express. For Lombard's words are, "The body of Christ, which is visible in itself, lurks and lies covered after the act of consecration under the species of bread," (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 12.) Thus the figure of the bread is nothing but a mask which conceals the view of the flesh from our eye. But there is no need of many conjectures to detect the snare which they intended to lay by these words, since the thing itself speaks clearly. It is easy to see how great is the superstition under which not only the vulgar, but the leaders also, have laboured for many ages, and still labour, in Popish Churches. Little solicitous as to true faith, (by which alone we attain to the fellowship of Christ, and become one with him,) provided they have his carnal presence, which they have fabricated without authority from the word, they think he is sufficiently present. Hence we see, that all which they have gained by their ingenious subtlety is to make bread to be regarded as God.

14. Transubstantiation

Hence proceeded that fictitious transubstantiation for which they fight more fiercely in the present day than for all the other articles of their faith. For the first architects of local presence could not explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of bread, without forthwith meeting with many absurdities. Hence it was necessary to have recourse to the fiction, that there is a conversion of the bread into body, not that properly instead of bread it becomes body, but that Christ, in order to conceal himself under the figure, reduces the substance to nothing.

It is strange that they have fallen into such a degree of ignorance, nay, of stupor, as to produce this monstrous fiction not only against Scripture, but also against the consent of the ancient Church.

I admit, indeed, that some of the ancients occasionally used the term conversion, not that they meant to do away with the substance in the external signs, but to teach that the bread devoted to the sacrament was widely different from ordinary bread, and was now something else. All clearly and uniformly teach that the sacred Supper consists of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. The earthly they without dispute interpret to be bread and wine.

Certainly, whatever they may pretend, it is plain that antiquity, which they often dare to oppose to the clear word of God, gives no countenance to that dogma. It is not so long since it was devised; indeed it was unknown not only to the better ages, in which a purer doctrine still flourished, but after that purity was considerably impaired. There is no early Christian writer who does not admit in distinct terms that the sacred symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, although, as has been said, they sometimes distinguish them by various epithets, in order to recommend the dignity of the mystery. For when they say that a secret conversion takes place at consecration, so that it is now something else than bread and wine, their meaning, as I already observed is not that these are annihilated but that they are to be considered in a different light from common food, which is only intended to feed the body whereas in the former the spiritual food and drink of the mind are exhibited. This we deny not.

But, say our opponents, if there is conversion, one thing must become another. If they mean that something becomes different from what it was before, I assent. If they will wrest it in support of their fiction, let them tell me of what kind of change they are sensible in baptism. For here also, the Fathers make out a wonderful conversion, when they say that out of the corruptible element is made the spiritual laver of the soul, and yet no one denies that it still remains water. But say they, there is no such expression in Baptism as that in the Supper, This is my body; as if we were treating of these words, which have a meaning sufficiently clear, and not rather of that term "conversion", which ought not to mean more in the Supper than in Baptism. Have done, then, with those quibbles upon words, which betray nothing but their silliness.

The meaning would have no congruity, unless the truth which is there figured had a living image in the external sign. Christ wished to testify by an external symbol that his flesh was food. If he exhibited merely an empty show of bread, and not true bread, where is the analogy or similitude to conduct us from the visible thing to the invisible? For, in order to make all things consistent, the meaning cannot extend to more than this, that we are fed by the species of Christ's flesh; just as, in the case of baptism, if the figure of water deceived the eye, it would not be to us a sure pledge of our ablution; nay, the fallacious spectacle would rather throw us into doubt. The nature of the sacrament is therefore overthrown if in the mode of signifying the earthly sign corresponds not to the heavenly reality; And, accordingly, the truth of the mystery is lost if true bread does not represent the true body of Christ. I again repeat, since the Supper is nothing but a conspicuous attestation to the promise which is contained in the sixth chapter of John, viz., that Christ is the bread of life, who came down from heaven, that visible bread must intervene, in order that that spiritual bread may be figured, unless we would destroy all the benefits with which God here favours us for the purpose of sustaining our infirmity. Then on what ground could Paul infer that we are all one bread, and one body in partaking together of that one bread, if only the semblance of bread, and not the natural reality, remained?

15. The actual basis of the doctrine of transubstantiation and the arguments adduced for it

They could not have been so shamefully deluded by the impostures of Satan had they not been fascinated by the erroneous idea, that the body of Christ included under the bread is transmitted by the bodily mouth into the belly. The cause of this brutish imagination was, that consecration had the same effect with them as magical incantation. They overlooked the principle, that bread is a sacrament to none but those to whom the word is addressed just as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but begins to be to us what it formerly was not, as soon as the promise is annexed.

This will better appear from the example of a similar sacrament. The water gushing from the rock in the desert was to the Israelites a badge and sign of the same thing that is figured to us in the Supper by wine. For Paul declares that they drank the same spiritual drink, (1 Cor. 10: 4.) But the water was common to the herds and flocks of the people. Hence it is easy to infer, that in the earthly elements, when employed for a spiritual use, no other conversion takes place than in respect of men, inasmuch as they are to them seals of promises.

Moreover, since it is the purpose of God, as I have repeatedly inculcated, to raise us up to himself by fit vehicles, those who indeed call us to Christ, but to Christ lurking invisibly under bread, impiously, by their perverseness, defeat this object. For it is impossible for the mind of man to disentangle itself from the immensity of space, and ascend to Christ even above the heavens. What nature denied them, they attempted to gain by a noxious remedy. Remaining on the earth, they felt no need of a celestial proximity to Christ. Such was the necessity which impelled them to transfigure the body of Christ.

In the age of Bernard, though a harsher mode of speech had prevailed, transubstantiation was not yet recognised. And in all previous ages, the similitude in the mouths of all was, that a spiritual reality was conjoined with bread and wine in this sacrament.

As to the terms, they think they answer acutely, though they adduce nothing relevant to the case in hand.

The rod of Moses, (they say,) when turned into a serpent, though it acquires the name of a serpent, still retains its former name, and is called a rod; and thus, according to them, it is equally probable that though the bread passes into a new substance, it is still called by catachresis, and not inaptly, what it still appears to the eye to be. But what resemblance, real or apparent, do they find between an illustrious miracle and their fictitious illusion, of which no eye on the earth is witness? The magi by their impostures had persuaded the Egyptians, that they had a divine power above the ordinary course of nature to change created beings. Moses comes forth, and after exposing their fallacies, shows that the invincible power of God is on his side, since his rod swallows up all the other rods. But as that conversion was visible to the eye, we have already observed, that it has no reference to the case in hand. Shortly after the rod visibly resumed its form. It may be added, that we know not whether this was an extemporary conversion of substance. For we must attend to the allusion to the rods of the magicians, which the prophet did not choose to term serpents, lest he might seem to insinuate a conversion which had no existence, because those impostors had done nothing more than blind the eyes of the spectators. But what resemblance is there between that expression and the following? "The bread which we break;" - "As often as ye eat this bread;" - "They communicated in the breaking of bread;" and so forth. It is certain that the eye only was deceived by the incantation of the magicians. The matter is more doubtful with regard to Moses, by whose hand it was not more difficult for God to make a serpent out of a rod, and again to make a rod out of a serpent, than to clothe angels with corporeal bodies, and a little after unclothe them. If the case of the sacrament were at all akin to this, there might be some colour for their explanation. Let it, therefore, remain fixed that there is no true and fit promise in the Supper, that the flesh of Christ is truly meat, unless there is a correspondence in the true substance of the external symbol.

But as one error gives rise to another, a passage in Jeremiah has been so absurdly wrested, to prove transubstantiation, that it is painful to refer to it. The prophet complains that wood was placed in his bread (Jer. 11:19), intimating that by the cruelty of his enemies his bread was infected with bitterness, as David by a similar figure complains, "They gave me also gall for my meat: and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," (Psalm 69: 21.) These men would allegorise the expressions to mean, that the body of Christ was nailed to the wood of the cross. But some of the Fathers thought so! As if we ought not rather to pardon their ignorance and bury the disgrace, than to add impudence, and bring them into hostile conflict with the genuine meaning of the prophet.

(Arguments for rejection of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body as narrowly literal, together with exposition of the spiritual view of communion with Christ with heaven, 16-31)
16. The opposing statement

Some, who see that the analogy between the sign and the thing signified cannot be destroyed without destroying the truth of the sacrament, admit that the bread of the Supper is truly the substance of an earthly and corruptible element, and cannot suffer any change in itself, but must have the body of Christ included under it.

If they would explain this to mean, that when the bread is held forth in the sacrament, an exhibition of the body is annexed, because the truth is inseparable from its sign, I would not greatly object. But because fixing the body itself in the bread, they attach to it an ubiquity contrary to its nature, and by adding, "under" the bread, will have it that it lies hid under it, I must employ a short time in exposing their craft, and dragging them forth from their concealments. Here, however, it is not my intention professedly to discuss the whole case; I mean only to lay the foundations of a discussion which will afterwards follow in its own place. They insist, then, that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no other way by which they can communicate with him than by his descending into the bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself. They employ all the colours they possibly can, but after they have said all, it is sufficiently apparent that they insist on the local presence of Christ. How so? Because they cannot conceive any other participation of flesh and blood than that which consists either in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross method of enclosing.

17. The doctrine of our opponents cancel the true corporeality of Christ

Some, in order obstinately to maintain the error which they have once rashly adopted, hesitate not to assert that the dimensions of Christ's flesh are not more circumscribed than those of heaven and earth. His birth as an infant, his growth, his extension on the cross, his confinement in the sepulchre, were effected, they say, by a kind of dispensation, that he might perform the offices of being born, of dying, and of other human acts: his being seen with his wonted bodily appearance after the resurrection (Acts 1:3; cf. I Cor.15:5), his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:9; Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19), his appearance, after his ascension, to Stephen (Acts 7:55) and Paul (Acts 9:3), were the effect of the same dispensation, that it might be made apparent to the eye of man that he was constituted King in heaven. What is this but to call forth Marcion from his grave? For there cannot be a doubt that the body of Christ, if so constituted, was a phantasm, or was phantastical.

Some employ a rather more subtle evasion, That the body which is given in the sacrament is glorious and immortal, and that, therefore, there is no absurdity in its being contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place, and in no form.

But, I ask, what did Christ give to his disciples the day before he suffered? Do not the words say that he gave the mortal body, which was to be delivered shortly after? But, say they, he had previously manifested his glory to the three disciples on the mount, (Matth. 17: 2.) This is true; but his purpose was to give them for the time a taste of immortality. Still they cannot find there a twofold body, but only the one which he had assumed, arrayed in new glory. When he distributed his body in the first Supper, the hour was at hand in which he was "stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted," (Isa. 53: 4.) So far was he from intending at that time to exhibit the glory of his resurrection. And here what a door is opened to Marcion, if the body of Christ was seen humble and mortal in one place, glorious and immortal in another! And yet, if their opinion is well founded, the same thing happens every day, because they are forced to admit that the body of Christ, which is in itself visible, lurks invisibly under the symbol of bread. And yet those who send forth such monstrous dogmas, so far from being ashamed at the disgrace, assail us with virulent invectives for not subscribing to them.

18. The presence is known when our minds are lifted up to heaven

But assuming that the body and blood of Christ are attached to the bread and wine, then the one must necessarily be dissevered from the other. For as the bread is given separately from the cup, so the body, united to the bread, must be separate from the blood, included in the cup. For since they affirm that the body is in the bread, and the blood is in the cup, while the bread and wine are, in regard to space, at some distance from each other, they cannot, by any quibble, evade the conclusion that the body must be separated from the blood.

Their usual pretence, viz., that the blood is in the body, and the body again in the blood, by what they call concomitance, is more than frivolous, since the symbols in which they are included are thus distinguished.

But if we are carried to heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body, and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and thereby have the full enjoyment of him. For though he withdrew his flesh from us, and with his body ascended to heaven, he, however, sits at the right hand of the Father; that is, he reigns in power and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This kingdom is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions. Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body; in fine, can feed them with his own body, communion with which he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.

19. How is the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper to be thought of?

The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way, (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory;) and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to his true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens when ever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.

But when these absurdities are discarded, I willingly admit any thing which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life.

For the odium with which this view is regarded by the world, and the unjust prejudice incurred by its defence, there is no cause, unless it be in the fearful fascinations of Satan. What we teach on the subject is in perfect accordance with Scripture, contains nothing absurd, obscure, or ambiguous, is not unfavourable to true piety and solid edification; in short, has nothing in it to offend, save that, for some ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of sophists reigned in the Church, the clear light and open truth were unbecomingly suppressed. And yet as Satan, by means of turbulent spirits, is still, in the present day, exerting himself to the utmost to bring dishonour on this doctrine by all kinds of calumny and reproach, it is right to assert and defend it with the greatest care.

20. The words of institution

Before we proceed farther, we must consider the ordinance itself, as instituted by Christ, because the most plausible objection of our opponents is, that we abandon his words. To free ourselves from the obloquy with which they thus load us, the fittest course will be to begin with an interpretation of the words. Three Evangelists and Paul relate that our Saviour took bread, and after giving thanks, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is given or broken for you. Of the cup, Matthew and Mark say, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," (Matt 26: 26; Mark 14: 22.) Luke and Paul say, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," (Luke 22: 20, 1 Cor. 11: 25.)

The advocates of transubstantiation insist, that by the pronoun, "this", is denoted the appearance of bread, because the whole complexion of our Saviour's address is an act of consecration, and there is no substance which can be demonstrated. But if they adhere so religiously to the words, inasmuch as that which our Saviour gave to his disciples he declared to be his body, there is nothing more alien from the strict meaning of the words than the fiction, that what was bread is now body. What Christ takes into his hands, and gives to the apostles, he declares to be his body; but he had taken bread, and, therefore, who sees not that what is given is still bread? Hence, nothing can be more absurd than to transfer what is affirmed of bread to the species of bread.

Others, in interpreting the particle "is", as equivalent to being transubstantiated, have recourse to a gloss which is forced and violently wrested. They have no ground, therefore, for pretending that they are moved by a reverence for the words. The use of the term is, for being inverted into something else, is unknown to every tongue and nation.

With regard to those who leave the bread in the Supper, and affirm that it is the body of Christ, there is great diversity among them. Those who speak more modestly, though they insist upon the letter, "This is my body", afterwards abandon this strictness, and observe that it is equivalent to saying that the body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread. To the reality which they affirm, we have already adverted, and will by and by, at greater length. I am now only considering the words by which they say they are prevented from admitting that the bread is called body, because it is a sign of the body. But if they shun every thing like metaphor, why do they leap from the simple demonstration of Christ to modes of expression which are widely different? For there is a great difference between saying that the bread is the body, and that the body is with the bread. But seeing it impossible to maintain the simple proposition that the bread is the body, they endeavoured to evade the difficulty by concealing themselves under those forms of expression.

Others, who are bolder, hesitate not to assert that, strictly speaking, the bread is body, and in this way prove that they are truly of the letter. If it is objected that the bread, therefore, is Christ, and, being Christ, is God, - they will deny it, because the words of Christ do not expressly say so. But they gain nothing by their denial, since all agree that the whole Christ is offered to us in the Supper. It is intolerable blasphemy to affirm, without figure, of a fading and corruptible element, that it is Christ. I now ask them, if they hold the two propositions to be identical, Christ is the Son of God, and Bread is the body of Christ? If they concede that they are different, (and this, whether they will or not, they will be forced to do,) let them tell wherein is the difference. All which they can adduce is, I presume, that the bread is called body in a sacramental manner. Hence it follows, that the words of Christ are not subject to the common rule, and ought not to be tested grammatically. I ask all these rigid and obstinate exactors of the letter, whether, when Luke and Paul call the cup "the testament in blood", they do not express the same thing as in the previous clause, when they call bread the body? There certainly was the same solemnity in the one part of the mystery as in the other, and, as brevity is obscure, the longer sentence better elucidates the meaning. As often, therefore, as they contend, from the one expression, that the bread is body, I will adduce an apt interpretation from the longer expression, That it is a testament in the body. What? Can we seek for surer or more faithful expounders than Luke and Paul?

I have no intention, however, to detract, in any respect, from the communication of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged. I only meant to expose the foolish perverseness with which they carry on a war of words. The bread I understand, on the authority of Luke and Paul, to be the body of Christ, because it is a covenant in the body. If they impugn this, their quarrel is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. However often they may repeat, that reverence for the words of Christ will not allow them to give a figurative interpretation to what is spoken plainly, the pretext cannot justify them in thus rejecting all the contrary arguments which we adduce.

Meanwhile, as I have already observed, it is proper to attend to the force of what is meant by a testament in the body and blood of Christ. The covenant, ratified by the sacrifice of death, would not avail us without the addition of that secret communication, by which we are made one with Christ.

21. The figurative interpretation of the decisive words

It remains, therefore, to hold, that on account of the affinity which the things signified have with their signs, the name of the thing itself is given to the sign figuratively, indeed, but very appropriately. I say nothing of allegories and parables, lest it should be alleged that I am seeking subterfuges, and slipping out of the present question.

I say that the expression which is uniformly used in Scripture, when the sacred mysteries are treated of, is metonymical. For you cannot otherwise understand the expressions, that circumcision is a "covenant" (Gen. 17:13) - that the lamb is the Lord's "passover" (Ex. 12:11) - that the sacrifices of the law are expiations (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22) - that the rock from which the water flowed in the desert (Ex. 17:6) was Christ,(I Cor. 10:4) - unless you interpret them metonymically. Nor is the name merely transferred from the superior to the inferior, but, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is given to the thing signified, as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in the bush (Ex. 3:2); the ark of the covenant is called God, and the face of God (Ps. 84:8; 42:3), and the dove is called the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16). For although the sign differs essentially from the thing signified, the latter being spiritual and heavenly, the former corporeal and visible, - yet, as it not only figures the thing which it is employed to represent as a naked and empty badge, but also truly exhibits it, why should not its name be justly applied to the thing? But if symbols humanly devised, which are rather the images of absent than the marks of present things, and of which they are very often most fallacious types, are sometimes honoured with their names, - with much greater reason do the institutions of God borrow the names of things, of which they always bear a sure, and by no means fallacious signification, and have the reality annexed to them. So great, then, is the similarity, and so close the connection between the two, that it is easy to pass from the one to the other.

Let our opponents, therefore, cease to indulge their mirth in calling us Tropists, when we explain the sacramental mode of expression according to the common use of Scripture. For, while the sacraments agree in many things, there is also, in this metonymy, a certain community in all respects between them. As, therefore, the apostle says that the rock from which spiritual water lowed forth to the Israelites was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 4,) and was thus a visible symbol under which that spiritual drink was truly perceived, though not by the eye, so the body of Christ is now called bread, inasmuch as it is a symbol under which our Lord offers us the true eating of his body.

Lest any one should despise this as a novel invention, the view which Augustine took and expressed was the same: "Had not the sacraments a certain resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. And from this resemblance, they generally have the names of the things themselves. This, as the sacrament of the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith," (August. Ep. 23, ad Bonifac.) He has many similar passages, which it would be superfluous to collect, as that one may suffice. I need only remind my readers, that the same doctrine is taught by that holy man in his Epistle to Evodius.

Where Augustine teaches that nothing is more common than metonymy in mysteries, it is a frivolous quibble to object that there is no mention of the Supper. Were this objection sustained, it would follow, that we are not entitled to argue from the genus to the species; e. g., Every animal is endued with motion; and, therefore, the horse and the ox are endued with motion. Indeed, longer discussion is rendered unnecessary by the words of the Saint himself, where he says, that when Christ gave the symbol of his body, he did not hesitate to call it his body, (August. Cont. Adimantum, cap. 12.) He elsewhere says "Wonderful was the patience of Christ in admitting Judas to the feast, in which he committed and delivered to the disciples the symbol of his body and blood," (August. in Ps. 3.)

22. The word "is"

Should any morose person, shutting his eyes to every thing else, insist upon the expression, "This is", as distinguishing this mystery from all others, the answer is easy. They say that the substantive verb is so emphatic, as to leave no room for interpretation. Though I should admit this, I answer, that the substantive verb occurs in the words of Paul, (1 Cor. 10: 16,) where he calls the bread the communion of the body of Christ. But communion is something different from the body itself.

Nay, when the sacraments are treated of, the same word occurs: "My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant," (Gen. 17: 13.) "This is the ordinance of the passover," (Exod. 12: 43.) To say no more, when Paul declares that the rock was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 4,) why should the substantive verb, in that passage, be deemed less emphatic than in the discourse of Christ? When John says, "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified," (John 7: 39,) I should like to know what is the force of the substantive verb? If the rule of our opponents is rigidly observed, the eternal essence of the Spirit will be destroyed, as if he had only begun to be after the ascension of Christ. Let them tell me, in fine, what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Tit. 3: 5;) though it is certain that to many it was of no use.

But they cannot be more effectually refuted than by the expression of Paul, that the Church is Christ. For, after introducing the similitude of the human body, he adds, "So also is Christ," (1 Cor. 12: 12,) when he means not the only begotten Son of God in himself, but in his members.

I think I have now gained this much, that all men of sense and integrity will be disgusted with the calumnies of our enemies, when they give out that we discredit the words of Christ; though we embrace them not less obediently than they do, and ponder them with greater reverence. Nay, their supine security proves that they do not greatly care what Christ meant, provided it furnishes them with a shield to defend their obstinacy, while our careful investigation should be an evidence of the authority which we yield to Christ.

They invidiously pretend that human reason will not allow us to believe what Christ uttered with his sacred mouth; but how naughtily they endeavour to fix this odium upon us, I have already in a great measure, shown, and will still show more clearly. Nothing, therefore, prevents us from believing Christ speaking, and from acquiescing in everything to which he intimates his assent. The only question here is, whether it be unlawful to inquire into the genuine meaning?

23. The impossibility of a purely literal interpretation

Those worthy masters, to show that they are of the letter, forbid us to deviate, in the least, from the letter. On the contrary, when Scripture calls God a man of war, as I see that the expression would be too harsh if not interpreted, I have no doubt that the similitude is taken from man.

And, indeed, the only pretext which enabled the Anthropomorphites to annoy the orthodox Fathers was by fastening on the expressions, "The eyes of God see" (Deut. 11:12; I Kings 8:29; Job 7:8; etc.); "It ascended to his ears" (Num. 11:18; II Sam. 22:7; II Kings 19:28; etc.); "His hand is stretched out" (Isa. 5:25; 23:11; Jer. 1:9;6:12; etc.); "The earth is his footstool" (Isa. 66:1; Matt. 5:35; Acts 7:49); - and exclaimed, that God was deprived of the body which Scripture assigns to him. Were this rule admitted, complete barbarism would bury the whole light of faith. What monstrous absurdities shall fanatical men not be able to extract, if they are allowed to urge every knotty point in support of their dogmas?

Their objection, that it is not probable that when Christ was providing special comfort for the apostles in adversity, he spoke enigmatically or obscurely, - supports our view. For, had it not occurred to the apostles that the bread was called the body figuratively, as being a symbol of the body, the extraordinary nature of the thing would doubtless have filled them with perplexity. For, at this very period, John relates, that the slightest difficulties perplexed them, (John 14: 5, 8; 16: 17.) They debate, among themselves, how Christ is to go to the Father, and not understanding that the things which were said referred to the heavenly Father, raise a question as to how he is to go out of the world until they shall see him? How, then could they have been so ready to believe what is repugnant to all reason, viz., that Christ was seated at table under their eye, and yet was contained invisible under the bread? As they attest their consent by eating this bread without hesitation, it is plain that they understood the words of Christ in the same sense as we do, considering, what ought not to seem unusual when mysteries are spoken of, that the name of the thing signified was transferred to the sign. There was therefore to the disciples, as there is to us, clear and sure consolation, not involved in any enigma; and the only reason why certain persons reject our interpretation is, because they are blinded by a delusion of the devil to introduce the darkness of enigma, instead of the obvious interpretation of an appropriate figure.

Besides, if we insist strictly on the words, our Saviour will be made to affirm erroneously something of the bread different from the cup. He calls the bread body, and the wine blood. There must either be a confusion in terms, or there must be a division separating the body from the blood. Nay, " This is my body," may be as truly affirmed of the cup as of the bread; and it may in turn be affirmed that the bread is the blood. If they answer, that we must look to the end or use for which symbols were instituted, I admit it; but still they will not disencumber themselves of the absurdity which their error drags along with it, viz., that the bread is blood, and the wine is body.

Then I know not what they mean when they concede that bread and body are different things, and yet maintain that the one is predicated of the other, properly and without figure, as if one were to say that a garment is different from a man, and yet is properly called a man. Still, as if the victory depended on obstinacy and invective, they say that Christ is charged with falsehood when it is attempted to interpret his words.

It will now be easy for the reader to understand the injustice which is done to us by those carpers at syllables, when they possess the simple with the idea that we bring discredit on the words of Christ; words which, as we have shown, are madly perverted and confounded by them, but are faithfully and accurately expounded by us.

24. Defense against the reproach that our interpretation is dictated by reason

This infamous falsehood cannot be completely wiped away without disposing of another charge. They give out that we are so wedded to human reason, that we attribute nothing more to the power of God than the order of nature admits, and common sense dictates. From these wicked calumnies, I appeal to the doctrine which I have delivered, - a doctrine which makes it sufficiently clear that I by no means measure this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or subject it to the laws of nature. I ask whether it is from physics we have learned that Christ feeds our souls from heaven with his flesh, just as our bodies are nourished by bread and wine? How has flesh this virtue of giving life to our souls? All will say, that it is not done naturally. Not more agreeable is it to human reason to hold that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us, so as to be our food. In short, every one who may have tasted our doctrine, will be carried away with admiration of the secret power of God.

But these worthy zealots fabricate for themselves a miracle, and think that without it God himself and his power vanish away.

I would again admonish the reader carefully to consider the nature of our doctrine, whether it depends on common apprehension, or whether, after having surmounted the world on the wings of faith, it rises to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external symbol as by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and blood. He who feels not that in these few words are many miracles is more than stupid, since nothing is more contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should, notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be collected, but united, so that souls receive ailment from the flesh of Christ. Let preposterous men, then, cease to assail us with the vile calumny, that we malignantly restrict the boundless power of God. They either foolishly err, or wickedly lie.

The question here is not, What could God do? But, What has he been pleased to do? We affirm that he has done what pleased him, and it pleased him that Christ should be in all respects like his brethren, "yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.) What is our flesh? Is it not that which consists of certain dimensions? is confined within a certain place? is touched and seen? And why, say they, may not God make the same flesh occupy several different places so as not to be confined to any particular place, and so as to have neither measure nor species? Fool! why do you require the power of God to make a thing to be at the same time flesh and not flesh? It is just as if you were to insist on his making light to be at the same time light and darkness. He wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh. True, when he so chooses, he will convert darkness into light, and light into darkness: but when you insist that there shall be no difference between light and darkness, what do you but pervert the order of the divine wisdom? Flesh must therefore be flesh, and spirit spirit; each under the law and condition on which God has created them. How the condition of flesh is, that it should have one certain place, its own dimension, its own form. On that condition, Christ assumed the flesh, to which, as Augustine declares, (Ep. ad Dardan.,) he gave incorruption and glory, but without destroying its nature and reality.

25. The word requires understanding and interpretation

They object that they have the word by which the will of God has been openly manifested; that is, if we permit them to banish from the Church the gift of interpretation (I. Cor. 12:10), which should throw light upon the word.

I admit that they have the word, but just as the Anthropomorphites of old had it, when they made God corporeal; just as Marcion and the Manichees had it when they made the body of Christ celestial or phantastical. They quoted the passages, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven," (1 Cor. 15: 47 Christ "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2: 7.)

But these vain boasters think that there is no power of God unless they fabricate a monster in their own brains, by which the whole order of nature is subverted. This rather is to circumscribe the power of God, to attempt to try, by our fictions, what he can do. From this word, they have assumed that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet lurks invisible on the earth under innumerable bits of bread. They will say that this is rendered necessary, in order that the body of Christ may be given in the Supper. In other words, because they have been pleased to extract a carnal eating from the words of Christ, carried away by their own prejudice, they have found it necessary to coin this subtlety, which is wholly repugnant to Scripture.

That we detract, in any respect, from the power of God, is so far from being true, that our doctrine is the loudest in extolling it. But as they continue to charge us with robbing God of his honour, in rejecting what, according to common apprehension, it is difficult to believe, though it had been promised by the mouth of Christ; I answer, as I lately did, that in the mysteries of faith we do not consult common apprehension, but, with the placid docility and spirit of meekness which James recommends, (James 1: 21,) receive the doctrine which has come from heaven.

Wherein they perniciously err, I am confident that we follow a proper moderation. On hearing the words of Christ, This is my body, they imagine a miracle most remote from his intention; and when, from this fiction, the grossest absurdities arise, having already, by their precipitate haste, entangled themselves with snares, they plunge themselves into the abyss of the divine omnipotence, that, in this way, they may extinguish the light of truth. Hence the supercilious moroseness. We have no wish to know how Christ is hid under the bread: we are satisfied with his own words, "This is my body." We again study, with no less obedience than care, to obtain a sound understanding of this passages as of the whole of Scripture. We do not, with preposterous fervour, rashly, and without choice, lay hold on whatever first presents itself to our minds; but, after careful meditation, embrace the meaning which the Spirit of God suggests. Trusting to him, we look down, as from a height, on whatever opposition may be offered by earthly wisdom. Nay, we hold our minds captive, not allowing one word of murmur, and humble them, that they may not presume to gainsay. In this way, we have arrived at that exposition of the words of Christ, which all who are moderately verdant in Scripture know to be perpetually used with regard to the sacraments. Still, in a matter of difficulty, we deem it not unlawful to inquire, after the example of the blessed virgin, "How shall this be?" (Luke 1: 34.)

26. The body of Christ is in heaven

But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of the pious than to show them that the doctrine which we have laid down is taken from the pure word of God, and rests on its authority, I will make this plain with as much brevity as I can. The body with which Christ rose is declared, not by Aristotle, but by the Holy Spirit, to be finite, and to be contained in heaven until the last day (cf. Acts 3:21). I am not unaware how confidently our opponents evade the passages which are quoted to this effect. Whenever Christ says that he will leave the world and go away, (John 14: 2, 28,) they reply, that that departure was nothing more than a change of mortal state. Were this so, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit, to supply, as they express it, the defect of his absence, since he does not succeed in place of him, nor, on the other hand, does Christ himself descend from the heavenly glory to assume the condition of a mortal life. Certainly the advent of the Spirit and the ascension of Christ are set against each other, and hence it necessarily follows that Christ dwells with us according to the flesh, in the same way as that in which he sends his Spirit.

Moreover, he distinctly says that he would not always be in the world with his disciples, (Matth. 26: 11.) This saying, also, they think they admirably dispose of, as if it were a denial by Christ that he would always be poor and mean, or liable to the necessities of a fading life. But this is plainly repugnant to the context, since reference is made not to poverty and want, or the wretched condition of an earthly life, but to worship and honour. The disciples were displeased with the anointing by Mary because they thought it a superfluous and useless expenditure, akin to luxury, and would therefore have preferred that the price which they thought wasted should have been expended on the poor. Christ answers, that he will not be always with them to receive such honour.

No different exposition is given by Augustine, whose words are by no means ambiguous. When Christ said, "Me ye have not always," he spoke of his bodily presence. In regard to his majesty, in regard to his providence, in regard to his ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said: "Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world," (Matt. 28: 20;) but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed - in regard to that which was born of the Virgin - in regard to that which was apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, suspended on the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the tomb, and manifested in the resurrection, - "Me ye have not always." Why? Since he conversed with his disciples in bodily presence for forty days, and, going out with them, ascended while they saw but followed not. He is not here, for he sits there, at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). And yet he is here: for the presence of his majesty is not withdrawn (Heb. 1:3). Otherwise, as regards the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always; while, in regard to his bodily presence, it was rightly said, "Me ye have not always."(Matt. 26:11). In respect of bodily presence, the Church had him for a few days: now she holds him by faith, but sees him not with the eye, (August. Tract. in Joann. 50.)

Here (that I may briefly note this) he makes him present with us in three ways in majesty providence, and ineffable grace; under which I comprehend that wondrous communion of his body and blood, provided we understand that it is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by that fictitious enclosing of his body under the element, since our Lord declared that he had flesh and bones which could be handled and seen (John 20:27).

Going away, and ascending, intimate, not that he had the appearance of one going away and ascending, but that he truly did what the words express. Some one will ask, Are we then to assign a certain region of heaven to Christ? I answer with Augustine that this is a curious and superfluous questions provided we believe that he is in heaven.

27. The meaning of the ascension for the above-mentioned question

What? Does not the very name of ascension, so often repeated, intimate removal from one place to another? This they deny because by height, according to them, the majesty of empire only is denoted. But what was the very mode of ascending? Was he not carried up while the disciples looked on? Do not the Evangelists clearly relate that he was carried into heaven? These acute Sophists reply, that a cloud intervened, and took him out of their sight, to teach the disciples that he would not afterwards be visible in the world. As if he ought not rather to have vanished in a moment, to make them believe in his invisible presence, or the cloud to have gathered around him before he moved a step. When he is carried aloft into the air, and the interposing cloud shows that he is no more to be sought on earth, we safely infer that his dwelling now is in the heavens, as Paul also asserts, bidding us to look for him frown thence, (Phil. 3: 20.) For this reason, the angels remind the disciples that it is vain to keep gazing up into heaven, because Jesus, who was taken up, would come in like manner as they had seen him ascend (Acts 1:11).

Here the adversaries of sound doctrine escape, as they think, by the ingenious quibble, that he will come in visible form, though he never departed from the earth, but remained invisible among his people. As if the angels had insinuated a twofold presence, and not simply made the disciples eye-witnesses of the ascent, that no doubt might remain. It was just as if they had said, By ascending to heaven, while you looked on, he has asserted his heavenly power: it remains for you to wait patiently until he again arrive to judge the world. He has not entered into heaven to occupy it alone, but to gather you and all the pious along with him.

28. The witness of Augustine

Since the advocates of this spurious dogma are not ashamed to honour it with the suffrages of the ancients, and especially of Augustine, how perverse they are in the attempt I will briefly explain. Pious and learned men have collected the passages, and, therefore, I am unwilling to plead a concluded cause: any one who wishes may consult their writings. I will not even collect from Augustine what might be pertinent to the matter, but will be contented to show briefly, that without all controversy he is wholly ours.

The pretence of our opponents, when they would wrest him from us, that throughout his works the flesh and blood of Christ are said to be dispensed in the Supper, namely the victim once offered on the cross, is frivolous, seeing he, at the same time, calls it either the eucharist or sacrament of the body. But it is unnecessary to go far to find the sense in which he uses the terms flesh and blood, since he himself explains saying, (Ep. 23, ad Bonif.) that the sacraments receive names from their similarity to the things which they designate; and that, therefore, the sacrament of the body is after a certain manner the body. With this agrees another well-known passage, "The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body when he gave the sign," (Cont. Adimant. Manich. cap. 12.)

They again object that Augustine says distinctly that the body of Christ falls upon the earth, and enters the mouth. But this is in the same sense in which he affirms that it is consumed, for he conjoins both at the same time. There is nothing repugnant to this in his saying that the bread is consumed after the mystery is performed: for he had said a little before "As these things are known to men, when they are done by men they may receive honour as being religious, but not as being wonderful," (De Trinity. Lib. 3 c. 10.)

His meaning is not different in the passage which our opponents too rashly appropriate to themselves, viz., that Christ in a manner carried himself in his own hands when he held out the mystical bread to his disciples. For by interposing the expressions "in a manner", he declares that he was not really or truly included under the bread. Nor is it strange, since he elsewhere plainly contends, that bodies could not be without particular localities, and being nowhere would have no existence. It is a paltry cavil that he is not there treating of the Supper, in which God exerts a special power. The question had been raised as to the flesh of Christ, and the holy man professedly replying, says, "Christ gave immortality to his flesh, but did not destroy its nature. In regard to this form, we are not to suppose that it is everywhere diffused; for we must beware not to rear up the divinity of the man, so as to take away the reality of the body. It does not follow that that which is in God is everywhere as God," (Ep. ad Dardan.) He immediately subjoins the reason, "One person is God and man, and both one Christ, everywhere, inasmuch as he is God, and in heaven, inasmuch as he is man." How careless would it have been not to except the mystery of the Supper, a matter so grave and serious, if it was in any respect adverse to the doctrine which he was handling? And yet, if any one will attentively read what follows shortly after, he will find that under that general doctrine the Supper also is comprehended, that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and also Son of man, is everywhere wholly present as God, in the temple of God, that is, in the Church, as an inhabiting God, and in some place in heaven, because of the dimensions of his real body. We see how, in order to unite Christ with the Church, he does not bring his body out of heaven. This he certainly would have done had the body of Christ not been truly our food, unless when included under the bread.

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, he says, "You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the meat and drink of the altar," (Tract. in Joann. 50.) How rightly he enumerates a superstitious rite, among the symbols of Christ's presence, I dispute not; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he has no idea of a twofold body of Christ, one lurking concealed under the bread, and another sitting visible in heaven. If there is any need of explanation, it is immediately added, "In respect of the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always: in respect of the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, 'Me ye have not always.'"

They object that he also adds, "In respect of ineffable and invisible grace is fulfilled what was said by him, 'I am with you always, even to the end of the world.'" (Matt. 28:20). But this is nothing in their favour. For it is at length restricted to his majesty, which is always opposed to body while the flesh is expressly distinguished from grace and virtue. The same antithesis elsewhere occurs, when he says that "Christ left the disciples in bodily presence, that he might be with them in spiritual presence." Here it is clear that the essence of the flesh is distinguished from the virtue of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, when, in respect of space, we are at a great distance from him. He repeatedly uses the same mode of expression, as when he says, "He is to come to the quick and the dead in bodily presence, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine: for in spiritual presence he was to come to them, and to be with the whole Church in the world until its consummation. Therefore, this discourse is directed to believers, whom he had begun already to save by corporeal presence, and whom he was to leave in corporeal absence, that by spiritual presence he might preserve them with the Father." By corporeal to understand visible is mere trifling, since he both opposes his body to his divine power, and by adding, that he might "preserve them with the Father," clearly expresses that he sends his grace to us from heaven by means of the Spirit.

29. On the reality of Christ's body

Since they put so much confidence in this hiding place of invisible presence, let us see how well they conceal themselves in it.

First, they cannot produce a syllable from Scripture to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted what no sound man will admit, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the Supper, unless covered with the mask of bread. This is the very point in dispute, so far is it from occupying the place of a first principle.

And while they thus prate, they are forced to give Christ a twofold body, because, according to them, it is visible in itself in heaven, but in the Supper is invisible, by a special mode of dispensation. The beautiful consistency of this may easily be judged, both from other passages of Scripture, and from the testimony of Peter. Peter says that the heavens must receive, or contain Christ, till he come again, (Acts 3: 21.) These men teach that he is in every place, but without form. They say that it is unfair to subject a glorious body to the ordinary laws of nature.

But this answer draws along with it the delirious dream of Servetus, which all pious minds justly abhor, that his body was absorbed by his divinity. I do not say that this is their opinion; but if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature.

Again, if the body of Christ is so multiform and diversified, that it appears in one place, and in another is invisible, where is there any thing of the nature of body with its proper dimensions, and where is its unity? Far more correct is Tertullian, who contends that the body of Christ was natural and real, because its figure is set before us in the mystery of the Supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual life, (Tertull. Cont. Marc. Lib. 4.) And certainly Christ said of his glorified body, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me have," (Luke 24: 39.) Here, by the lips of Christ himself, the reality of his flesh is proved, by its admitting of being seen and handled. Take these away and it will cease to be flesh.

They always retake themselves to their lurkingplace of dispensations which they have fabricated. But it is our duty so to embrace what Christ absolutely declares, as to give it an unreserved assent. He proves that he is not a phantom, because he is visible in his flesh. Take away what he claims as proper to the nature of his body, and must not a new definition of body be devised?

Then, however they may turn themselves about they will not find any place for their fictitious dispensation in that passage, in which Paul says, that "our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Phil. 3: 20, 21.) We are not to hope for conformity to Christ in these qualities which they ascribe to him as a body, without bounds, and invisible. They will not find any one so stupid as to be persuaded of this great absurdity. Let them not, therefore, set it down as one of the properties of Christ's glorious body, that it is, at the same time, in many places, and in no place. In short, let them either openly deny the resurrection of his flesh, or admit that Christ, when invested with celestial glory did not lay aside his flesh, but is to make us, in our flesh, his associates, and partakers of the same glory, since we are to have a common resurrection with him. For what does Scripture throughout deliver more clearly than that, as Christ assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin, and suffered in our true flesh when he made satisfaction for us, so on rising again he resumed the same true flesh, and carried it with him to heaven? The hope of our resurrection, and ascension to heaven, is, that Christ rose again and ascended, and, as Tertullian says, (De Resurrect. Carnis,) "Carried an earnest of our resurrection along with him into heaven." Moreover, how weak and fragile would this hope be, had not this very flesh of ours in Christ been truly raised up, and entered into the kingdom of heaven. But the essential properties of a body are to be confined by space, to have dimension and form. Have done then with that foolish fiction, which affixes the minds of men, as well as Christ, to bread.

For to what end this occult presence under the bread, save that those who wish to have Christ conjoined with them may stop short at the symbol? But our Lord himself wished us to withdraw not only our eyes but all our senses from the earth, forbidding the woman to touch him until he had ascended to the Father, (John 20: 17.) When he sees Mary, with pious reverential zeal hastening to kiss his feet, there could be no reason for his disapproving and forbidding her to touch him before he had ascended to heaven, unless he wished to be sought nowhere else.

The objection, that he afterwards appeared to Stephen (Acts 7:55), is easily answered. It was not necessary for our Saviour to change his place, as he could give the eyes of his servant a power of vision which could penetrate to heaven. The same account is to be given of the case of Paul (Acts 9:4).

The objection, that Christ came forth from the closed sepulchre, and came in to his disciples while the doors were shut, (Matth. 28: 6; John 20: 19,) gives no better support to their error. For as the water, just as if it had been a solid pavement, furnished a path to our Saviour when he walked on it, (Matt. 14,) so it is not strange that the hard stone yielded to his step; although it is more probable that the stone was removed at his command, and forthwith, after giving him a passage, returned to its place. To enter while the doors were shut, was not so much to penetrate through solid matter, as to make a passage for himself by divine power, and stand in the midst of his disciples in a most miraculous manner.

They gain nothing by quoting the passage from Luke, in which it is said, that Christ suddenly vanished from the eyes of the disciples, with whom he had journeyed to Emmaus, (Luke 24: 31.) In withdrawing from their sight, he did not become invisible: he only disappeared. Thus Luke declares that, on the journey with them, he did not assume a new form, but that "their eyes were holden." But these men not only transform Christ that he may live on the earth, but pretend that there is another elsewhere of a different description. In short, by thus trifling, they, not in direct terms indeed, but by a circumlocution, make a spirit of the flesh of Christ; and, not contented with this, give him properties altogether opposite. Hence it necessarily follows that he must be twofold.

30. The ubiquity of Christ's body rejected

Granting what they absurdly talk of the invisible presence, it will still be necessary to prove the immensity, without which it is vain to attempt to include Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ can be everywhere without any boundaries of space, it is impossible to believe that he is hid in the Supper under the bread. Hence they have been under the necessity of introducing the monstrous dogma of ubiquity.

But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that it is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that its ascension into heaven made it plain that it is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied.

The promise to which they appeal, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," is not to be applied to the body. First, then, a perpetual connection with Christ could not exist, unless he dwells in us corporally, in depend entry of the use of the Supper; and, therefore, they have no good ground for disputing so bitterly concerning the words of Christ, in order to include him under the bread in the Supper. Secondly, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them. Unless we would throw every thing into confusion, must it not be necessary to distinguish the mode of presence?

And, indeed, some, to their great disgrace, choose rather to betray their ignorance than give up one iota of their error. I speak not of Papists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so hurried away by contention as to say, that on account of the union of natures in Christ, wherever his divinity is, there his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is also; as if that union formed a kind of medium of the two natures, making him to be neither God nor man. So held Eutyches, and after him Servetus. But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired. That Eutyches was justly condemned, they will not have the hardihood to deny. It is strange that they attend not to the cause of condemnation, viz., that destroying the distinction between the natures, and insisting only on the unity of person, he converted God into man and man into God. What madness, then, is it to confound heaven with earth, sooner than not withdraw the body of Christ from its heavenly sanctuary?

In regard to the passages which they adduce, "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven," John 3: 13;) "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has declared him (John 1: 18,) they betray the same stupidity, scouting the communion of properties, (idiomatum, koinonian,) which not without reason was formerly invented by holy Fathers. Certainly when Paul says of the princes of this world that they "crucified the Lord of glory," (1 Cor. 2: 8) he means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise God and the Lord of glory. In this way, both the Son of man was in heaven because he was also Christ; and he who, according to the flesh, dwelt as the Son of man on earth, was also God in heaven. For this reason, he is said to have descended from heaven in respect of his divinity, not that his divinity quitted heaven to conceal itself in the prison of the body, but because, although he filled all things, it yet resided in the humanity of Christ corporeally, that is, naturally, and in an ineffable manner. There is a trite distinction in the schools which I hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgement.

31. Christ not brought down to us; we are lifted up to him

They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. They thus leave nothing for the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. Christ does not seem to them to be present unless he descends to us, as if we did not equally gain his presence when he raises us to himself. The only question, therefore, is as to the mode, they placing Christ in the breads while we deem it unlawful to draw him down from heaven. Which of the two is more correct, let the reader judge. Only have done with the calumny that Christ is withdrawn from his Supper if he lurk not under the covering of bread. For seeing this mystery is heavenly, there is no necessity to bring Christ on the earth that he may be connected with us.

(The true nature of the corporeal presence in which believers partake through the Spirit, 32-34)
32. Involved solutions of the mystery rejected

Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul (John 6:53f); I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids, me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive.

Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Since they must also be repugnant to the word of God, which teaches both that Christ was received into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circumstances of the world, (Luke 24: 26,) and no less carefully ascribes to him the properties belonging to a true human nature.

This ought not to seem incredible or contradictory to reason, (Iren. Lib. 4 cap. 34;) because as the whole kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever he does in his Church is not to be tested by the wisdom of this world; or, to use the words of Augustine "this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner." Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality.

Those who are carried beyond this with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple truth. If any one is not yet satisfied, I would have him here to consider with himself that we are speaking of the sacrament, every part of which ought to have reference to faith. Now by participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly then do those who drag Christ himself from heaven.

Still I am free to confess that that mixture or transfusion of the flesh of Christ with our souls which they teach I repudiate, because it is enough for us, that Christ, out of the substance of his flesh, breathes life into our souls, nay, diffuses his own life into us, though the real flesh of Christ does not enter us. I may add, that there can be no doubt that the analogy of faith by which Paul enjoins us to test every interpretation of Scripture (Rom. 12:3,6), is clearly with us in this matter. Let those who oppose a truth so clear, consider to what standard of faith they conform themselves: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God," (1 John 4: 23; 2 John ver. 7.) These men, though they disguise the fact, or perceive it not, rob him of his flesh.

33. Spiritual and, hence, actual partaking of Christ; partaking of the Lord's Supper by unbelievers

The same view must be taken of communion, which, according to them, has no existence unless they swallow the flesh of Christ under the bread. But no slight insult is offered to the Spirit if we refuse to believe that it is by his incomprehensible agency that we communicate in the body and blood of Christ. Nay, if the nature of the mystery, as delivered to us, and known to the ancient Church for four hundred years, had been considered as it deserves, there was more than enough to satisfy us; the door would have been shut against many disgraceful errors. These have kindled up fearful dissensions, by which the Church both anciently and in our own times, has been miserably vexed; curious men insisting on an extravagant mode of presence to which Scripture gives no countenance. And for a matter thus foolishly and rashly devised they keep up a turmoil, as if the including of Christ under the bread were, so to speak, the beginning and end of piety. It was of primary importance to know how the body of Christ once delivered to us becomes ours and how we become partakers of his shed blood, because this is to possess the whole of Christ crucified, so as to enjoy all his blessings. But overlooking these points, in which there was so much importance, nay, neglecting and almost suppressing them, they occupy themselves only with this one perplexing question, How is the body of Christ hidden under the bread, or under the appearance of bread?

They falsely pretend that all which we teach concerning spiritual eating is opposed to true and what they call real eating, since we have respect only to the mode of eating. This according to them, is carnal, since they include Christ under the bread, but according to us is spiritual, inasmuch as the sacred agency of the Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ.

No better founded is the other objection, that we attend only to the fruit or effect which believers receive from eating the flesh of Christ. We formerly said, that Christ himself is the matter of the Supper, and that the effect follows from this, that by the sacrifice of his death our sins are expiated, by his blood we are washed, and by his resurrection we are raised to the hope of life in heaven. But a foolish imagination, of which Lombard was the author, perverts their minds, while they think that the sacrament is the eating of the flesh of Christ. His words are, "The sacrament and not the thing are the forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and blood of Christ; the thing and not the sacrament is his mystical flesh," (Lombard, Lib. 4: Dist. 8.) 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." To his distinction between the flesh of Christ and the power of nourishing which it possesses, I assent; but his maintaining it to be a sacrament, and a sacrament contained under the bread, is an error not to be tolerated.

Hence has arisen that false interpretation of sacramental eating, because it was imagined that even the wicked and profane, however much alienated from Christ, eat his body.

But the very flesh of Christ in the mystery of the Supper is no less a spiritual matter than eternal salvation. Whence we infer, that all who are devoid of the Spirit of Christ can no more eat the flesh of Christ than drink wine that has no savour. Certainly Christ is shamefully lacerated, when his body, as lifeless and without any vigour, is prostituted to unbelievers. This is clearly repugnant to his words, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," (John 6: 56.) They object, that he is not there speaking of sacramental eating; this I admit, provided they will not ever and anon stumble on this stone, that his flesh itself is eaten without any benefit.

I should like to know how they confine it after they have eaten. Here, in my opinion, they will find no outlet. But they object, that the ingratitude of man cannot in any respect detract from, or interfere with, faith in the promises of God. I admit and hold that the power of the sacrament remains entire, however the wicked may labour with all their might to annihilate it. Still, it is one thing to be offered, another to be received. Christ gives this spiritual food and holds forth this spiritual drink to all. Some eat eagerly, others superciliously reject it. Will their rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will say that this similitude supports their opinion, viz., that the flesh of Christ, though it be without taste, is still flesh. But I deny that it can be eaten without the taste of faith, or, (if it is more agreeable to speak with Augustine,) I deny that men carry away more from the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally partaking of it, go away empty.

If, again, they object, that it derogates from the expression, "This is my body," if the wicked receive corruptible bread and nothing besides, it is easy to answer, that God wills not that his truth should be recognised in the mere reception, but in the constancy of his goodness, while he is prepared to perform, nay, liberally offers to the unworthy what they reject. The integrity of the sacrament, an integrity which the whole world cannot violate, lies here, that the flesh and blood of Christ are not less truly given to the unworthy than to the elect believers of God; and yet it is true, that just as the rain falling on the hard rock runs away, because it cannot penetrate, so the wicked by their hardness repel the grace of God, and prevent it from reaching them. We may add, that it is no more possible to receive Christ without faith, than it is for seed to germinate in the fire.

They ask how Christ can have come for the condemnation of some, unless they unworthily receive him; but this is absurd, since we nowhere read that they bring death upon themselves by receiving Christ unworthily, but by rejecting him.

They are not aided by the parable in which Christ says, that the seed which fell among thorns sprang up, but was afterwards choked, (Matth. 13: 7,) because he is there speaking of the effect of a temporary faith, a faith which those who place Judas in this respect on a footing with Peter, do not think necessary to the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ. Nay, their error is refuted by the same parable, when Christ says that some seed fell upon the wayside, and some on stony ground, and yet neither took root. Hence it follows that the hardness of believers is an obstacle which prevents Christ from reaching them.

All who would have our salvation to be promoted by this sacrament, will find nothing more appropriate than to conduct believers to the fountain (cf. John 4:6-15), that they may draw life from the Son of God. The dignity is amply enough commended when we hold, that it is a help by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, already ingrafted, may be more and more united to him, until the union is completed in heaven. They object, that Paul could not have made them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if they had not partaken of them, (1 Cor. 11: 27;) I answer, that they were not condemned for having eaten, but only for having profaned the ordinance lay trampling under foot the pledge, which they ought to have reverently received, the pledge of sacred union with God.

34. Partaking of the Lord's Supper by unbelievers, according to Augustine

Moreover, as among ancient writers, Augustine especially maintained this head of doctrine, that the grace figured by the sacraments is not impaired or made void by the infidelity or malice of men, it will be useful to prove clearly from his words, how ignorantly and erroneously those who cast forth the body of Christ to be eaten by dogs, wrest them to their present purpose. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without the agency of the Spirit, or any gracious effect. Augustine, on the contrary, prudently pondering the expression, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, has eternal life," (John 6: 54,) says: "That is the virtue of the sacrament, and not merely the visible sacrament: the sacrament of him who eats inwardly, not of him who eats outwardly, or merely with the teeth," (Hom. in Joann. 26.) Hence he at length concludes, that the sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, is set before some for life, before others for destruction; while the matter itself, of which it is the sacraments is to all for life, to none for destruction, whoever may have been the partaker. Lest any one should here cavil that by "thing" not meant body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from it, he dissipates these mists by the antithetical epithets, Visible and Invisible. For the body of Christ cannot be included under the former. Hence it follows, that unbelievers communicate only in the visible symbol; and the better to remove all doubt, after saying that this bread requires an appetite in the inner man, he adds, (Hom. in Joann. 59,) "Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and many others who ate manna, pleased God. Why? Because the visible food they understood spiritually, hungered for spiritually, tasted spiritually, and feasted on spiritually. We, too, in the present day, have received visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament is another." A little after, he says: "And hence, he who remains not in Christ, and in whom Christ remains not, without doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though with his teeth he may carnally and visibly press the symbol of his body and blood." again, we are told that the visible sign is opposed to spiritual eating. This refutes the error that the invisible body of Christ is sacramentally eaten in reality, although not spiritually. We are told, also, that nothing is given to the impure and profane beyond the visible taking of the sign. Hence his celebrated saying, that the other disciples ate bread which was the Lord, whereas Judas ate the bread of the Lord, (Hom. in Joann. 62.) By this he clearly excludes unbelievers from participation in his body and blood. He has no other meaning when he says, "Why do you wonder that the bread of Christ was given to Judas, though he consigned him to the devil, when you see, on the contrary, that a messenger of the devil was given to Paul to perfect him in Christ?"(II Cor. 12:7) (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5.) He indeed says elsewhere, that the bread of the Supper was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; and that it does not follow that they received nothing because they received unworthily."(I Cor. 11:29). But in what sense he says this, he explains more fully in another passage, (De Civit. Dei, Lib. 21 c. 25.) For undertaking professedly to explains how the wicked and profane, who, with the mouth, profess the faith of Christ, but in act deny him, eat the body of Christ; and, indeed, refuting the opinion of some who thought that they ate not only sacramentally, but really, he says: "Neither can they be said to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted among the members of Christ. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at the same time the members of Christ and the members of a harlot (I Cor. 6:15). In fine, when Christ himself says, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," (John 6: 56,) he shows what it is to eat the body of Christ, not sacramentally, but in reality. It is to abide in Christ, that Christ may abide in him. For it is just as if he had said, Let not him who abides not in me, and in whom I abide not, say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood."

Let the reader attend to the antithesis between eating sacramentally and eating really, and there will be no doubt. The same thing he confirms not less clearly in these words: &quotrepare not the jaws, but the heart; for which alone the Supper is appointed. We believe in Christ when we receive him in faith; in receiving, we allow what we think: we receive a small portion, but our heart is filled: it is not therefore that which is seen, but that which is believed, that feeds," (August. Cont. Faust. Lib. 13 c. 16.) Here, also, he restricts what the wicked take to the visible sign, and shows that the only way of receiving Christ is by faith. So, also, in another passage, declaring distinctly that the good and the bad communicate by signs, he excludes the latter from the true eating of the flesh of Christ. For had they received the reality, he would not have been altogether silent as to a matter which was pertinent to the case. In another passage, speaking of eating, and the fruit of it, he thus concludes: "Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to each, if that which is visibly taken in the sacrament is in reality spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk," (De Verb. Apost. Serm. 2.) Let those, therefore, who make unbelievers partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, if they would agree with Augustine, set before us the visible body of Christ, since, according to him the whole truth is spiritual. And certainly his words imply that sacramental eating when unbelief excludes the entrance of the reality, is only equivalent to visible or external eating. But if the body of Christ may be truly and yet not spiritually eaten, what could he mean when he elsewhere says: "Ye are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which will be shed by those who are to crucify me? I have committed a certain sacrament to you: it is the spiritual meaning which will give you life," (August. in Ps. 98.) He certainly meant not to deny that the body offered in the Supper is the same as that which Christ offered in sacrifice; but he adverted to the mode of eating, viz., that the body, though received into the celestial glory, breathes life into us by the secret energy of the Spirit. I admit, indeed, that he often uses the expression, "that the body of Christ is eaten by unbelievers;" but he explains himself by adding, "in the sacrament." And he elsewhere speaks of a spiritual eating, in which our teeth do not chew grace, (Hom. in Joann. 27.) And, lest my opponents should say that I am trying to overwhelm them with the mass of my quotations, I would ask how they get over this one sentence: "In the elect alone, the sacraments effect what they figure." Certainly they will not venture to deny, that by the bread in the Supper, the body of Christ is figured. Hence it follows, that the reprobate are not allowed to partake of it. That Cyril did not think differently, is clear from these words: "As one in pouring melted wax on melted wax mixes the whole together, so it is necessary, when one receives the body and blood of the Lord, to be conjoined with him, that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ." From these words, I think it plain that there is no true and real eating by those Who only eat the body of Christ sacramentally, seeing the body cannot be separated from its virtue, and that the promises of God do not fail, though, while he ceases not to rain from heaven, rocks and stones are not penetrated by the moisture.

(Superstitious adoration of the elements excluded, 35-37)
35. Adoration of the elements rejected

This consideration will easily dissuade us from that carnal adoration which some men have, with perverse temerity, introduced into the sacrament, reasoning thus with themselves: If it is body, then it is also soul and divinity which go along with the body and cannot be separated from it, and, therefore, Christ must there be adored.

First, if we deny their pretended concomitance, what will they do? For, as they chiefly insist on the absurdity of separating the body of Christ from his soul and divinity, what sane and sober man can persuade himself that the body of Christ is Christ? They think that they completely establish this by their syllogisms. But since Christ speaks separately of his body and blood, without describing the mode of his presence, how can they in a doubtful matter arrive at the certainty which they wish? What then? Should their consciences be at any time exercised with some more grievous apprehension, will they forthwith set them free, and dissolve the apprehension by their syllogisms? In other words, when they see that no certainty is to be obtained from the word of God, in which alone our minds can rest, and without which they go astray the very first moment when they begin to reason, when they see themselves opposed by the doctrine and practice of the apostles, and that they are supported by no authority but their own, how will they feel? To such feelings other sharp stings will be added. What? Was it a matter of little moment to worship God under this form without any express injunction? In a matter relating to the true worship of God, were we thus lightly to act without one Word of Scripture? Had all their thoughts been kept in due subjection to the word of God, they certainly would have listened to what he himself has said, "Take, eat, and drink," and obeyed the command by which he enjoins us to receive the sacrament, not worship it.

Those who receive, without adoration, as commanded by God, are secure that they deviate not from the command. In commencing any work, nothing is better than this security. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read not that they prostrated themselves and worshipped, but that they sat down, took and ate. They have the practice of the apostolic Church, where, as Luke relates, believers communicated not in adoration, but in the breaking of bread, (Acts 2: 42.) They have the doctrine of the apostles as taught to the Corinthian Church by Paul, who declares that what he delivered he had received of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11: 23.)

36. Superstition and idolatry in such adoration

The object of these remarks is to lead pious readers to reflect how dangerous it is in matters of such difficulty to wander from the simple word of God to the dreams of our own brain. What has been said above should free us from all scruple in this matter. That the pious soul may duly apprehend Christ in the sacrament, it must rise to heaven. But if the office of the sacrament is to aid the infirmity of the human mind, assisting it in rising upwards, so as to perceive the height of spiritual mysteries those who stop short at the external sign stray from the right path of seeking Christ. What then? Can we deny that the worship is superstitious when men prostrate themselves before bread that they may therein worship Christ? The Council of Nice undoubtedly intended to meet this evil when it forbade us to give humble heed to the visible signs. And for no other reason was it formerly the custom, previous to consecration, to call aloud upon the people to raise their hearts, "sursum corda". Scripture itself, also, besides carefully narrating the ascension of Christ, by which he withdrew his bodily presence from our eye and company, that it might make us abandon all carnal thoughts of him, whenever it makes mention of him, enjoins us to raise our minds upwards and seek him in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, (Col. 3: 2.) According to this rule, we should rather have adored him spiritually in the heavenly glory, than devised that perilous species of adoration replete with gross and carnal ideas of God.

Those, therefore, who devised the adoration of the sacrament, not only dreamed it of themselves without any authority from Scripture, where no mention of it can be shown, (it would not have been omitted, had it been agreeable to God;) but, disregarding scripture, forsook the living God, and fabricated a god for themselves, after the lust of their own hearts. For what is idolatry if it is not to worship the gifts instead of the giver? Here the sin is twofold. The honour robbed from God is transferred to the creature, and God moreover, is dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of his own goodness, while his holy sacrament is converted into an execrable idol. Let us, on the contrary, that we may not fall into the same pit, wholly confine our eyes, ears, hearts, minds, and tongues, to the sacred doctrine of God. For this is the school of the Holy Spirit, that best of masters, in which such progress is made, that while nothing is to be acquired any where else, we must willingly be ignorant of whatever is not there taught.

37. Superstitious rites with the consecrated host

Then, as superstition, when once it has passed the proper bounds, has no end to its errors, men went much farther; for they devised rites altogether alien from the institution of the Supper, and to such a degree that they paid divine honours to the sign. They say that their veneration is paid to Christ. First, if this were done in the Supper, I would say that that adoration only is legitimate which stops not at the sign, but rises to Christ sitting in heaven. Now, under what pretext do they say that they honour Christ in that bread, when they have no promise of this nature? They consecrate the host, as they call it, and carry it about in solemn show, and formally exhibit it to be admired, reverenced, and invoked. I ask by what virtue they think it duly consecrated? They will quote the words, "This is my body." I, on the contrary, will object, that it was at the same time said, "Take, eat." Nor will I count the other passage as nothing; for I hold that since the promise is annexed to the command, the former is so included under the latter, that it cannot possibly be separated from it. This will be made clearer by an example. God gave a command when he said, "Call upon me," and added a promise, "I will deliver thee," (Psal. 50: 15.) Should any one invoke Peter or Paul, and found on this promise, will not all exclaim that he does it in error? And what else, pray, do those do who, disregarding the command to eat, fasten on the mutilated promise, "This is my body," that they may pervert it to rites alien from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, therefore, that this promise has been given to those who observe the command connected with it, and that those who transfer the sacrament to another end, have no countenance from the word of God.

We formerly showed how the mystery of the sacred Supper contributes to our faith in God. But since the Lord not only reminds us of this great gift of his goodness, as we formerly explained, but passes it, as it were, from hand to hand, and urges us to recognise it, he, at the same time, admonishes us not to be ungrateful for the kindness thus bestowed, but rather to proclaim it with such praise as is meet, and celebrate it with thanksgiving. Accordingly, when he delivered the institution of the sacrament to the apostles, he taught them to do it in remembrance of him, which Paul interprets, "to show forth his death," (1 Cor. 11: 26.) And this is that all should publicly and with one mouth confess that all our confidence of life and salvation is placed in our Lord's death, that we ourselves may glorify him by our confession, and by our example excite others also to give him glory. Here, again, we see what the aim of the sacrament is, namely, to keep us in remembrance of Christ's death. When we are ordered to show forth the Lord's death till he come again, all that is meant is, that we should with confession of the mouth, proclaim what our faith has recognised in the sacrament, viz., that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use of the sacrament, and relates to outward confession.

(Points of special emphasis: mutual love; the accompaniment of preaching; medicine for sick souls; worthy partaking; suitable form and the frequency of administration, 38-46)
38. The Lord's Supper implies mutual love

Thirdly, The Lord intended it to be a kind of exhortation, than which no other could urge or animate us more strongly, both to purity and holiness of life, and also to charity, peace, and concord. For the Lord there communicates his body so that he may become altogether one with us, and we with him. Moreover, since he has only one body of which he makes us all to be partakers, we must necessarily, by this participation, all become one body. This unity is represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. As it is composed of many grains, so mingled together, that one cannot be distinguished from another; so ought our minds to be so cordially united, as not to allow of any dissension or division. This I prefer giving in the words 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," (1 Cor. 10: 15, 16.) We shall have profited admirably in the sacrament, if the thought shall have been impressed and engraven on our minds, that none of our brethren is hurt, despised, rejected, injured, or in any way offended, without our, at the same time, hurting, despising, and injuring Christ; that we cannot have dissension with our brethren, without at the same time dissenting from Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving our brethren; that the same care we take of our own body we ought to take of that of our brethren, who are members of our body; that as no part of our body suffers pain without extending to the other parts, so every evil which our brother suffers ought to excite our compassion. Wherefore Augustine not inappropriately often terms this sacrament the bond of charity. What stronger stimulus could be employed to excite mutual charity, than when Christ, presenting himself to us, not only invites us by his example to give and devote ourselves mutually to each other, but inasmuch as he makes himself common to all, also makes us all to be one in him.

39. The Lord's Supper cannot exist apart from the Word

This most admirably confirms what I elsewhere said, viz., that there cannot be a right administration of the Supper without the word. And utility which we derive from the Supper requires the word. Whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing, therefore, can be more preposterous than to convert the Supper into a dumb action. This is done under the tyranny of the Pope, the whole effect of consecration being made to depend on the intention of the priest, as if it in no way concerned the people, to whom especially the mystery ought to have been explained. This error has originated from not observing that those promises by which consecration is effected are intended not for the elements themselves, but for those who receive them. Christ does not address the bread and tell it to become his body but bids his disciples eat, and promises them the communion of his body and blood. And, according to the arrangement which Paul makes, the promises are to be offered to believers along with the bread and the cup. Thus, indeed, it is. We are not to imagine some magical incantation, and think it sufficient to mutter the words, as if they were heard by the elements; but we are to regard those words as a living sermon, which is to edify the hearers, penetrate their minds, be impressed and seated in their hearts, and exert its efficacy in the fulfilment of that which it promises.

For these reasons, it is clear that the setting apart of the sacrament, as some insist, that an extraordinary distribution of it may be made to the sick, is useless. They will either receive it without hearing the words of the institution read, or the minister will conjoin the true explanation of the mystery with the sign. In the silent dispensation, there is abuse and defect. If the promises are narrated, and the mystery is expounded, that those who are to receive may receive with advantage, it cannot be doubted that this is the true consecration. What then becomes of that other consecration, the effect of which reaches even to the sick? But those who do so have the example of the early Church. I confess it; but in so important a matter, where error is so dangerous, nothing, is safer than to follow the truth.

40. Of unworthy partaking of the Sacrament

Moreover, as we see that this sacred bread of the Lord's Supper is spiritual food, is sweet and savoury, not less than salutary, to the pious worshipers of God; on tasting which they feel that Christ is their life, are disposed to give thanks, and exhorted to mutual love; so, on the other hand, it is converted into the most noxious poison to all whom it does not nourish and confirm in the faith, nor urge to thanksgiving and charity. For, just as corporeal food, when received into a stomach subject to morbid humours, becomes itself vitiated and corrupted, and rather hurts than nourishes, so this spiritual food also, if given to a soul polluted with malice and wickedness, plunges it into greater ruin, not indeed by any defect in the food, but because to the "defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure," (Titus 1: 15,) however much it may be sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;" "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body," (1 Cor. 11: 27, 29.) For men of this description, who without any spark of faith, without any zeal for charity, rush forward like swine to seize the Lord's Supper, do not at all discern the Lord's body. For, inasmuch as they do not believe that body to be their life, they put every possible affront upon it, stripping it of all its dignity, and profane and contaminate it by so receiving; inasmuch as while alienated and estranged from their brethren, they dare to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ's body with their dissensions. No thanks to them if the body of Christ is not rent and torn to pieces. Wherefore they are justly held guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which, with sacrilegious impiety, they so vilely pollute. By this unworthy eating, they bring judgement on themselves. For while they have no faith in Christ, yet, by receiving the sacrament, they profess to place their salvation only in him and abjure all other confidence. Wherefore they themselves are their own accusers; they bear witness against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. Next being divided and separated by hatred and ill-will from their brethren that is from the members of Christ, they have no part in Christ, and yet they declare that the only safety is to communicate with Christ, and be united to him.

For this reason Paul commands a man to examine himself before he eats of that bread, and drinks of that cup, (1 Cor. 11: 28.) By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself, and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and, with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ; whether, after his example, he is prepared to give himself to his brethren, and to hold himself in common with those with whom he has Christ in common; whether, as he himself is regarded by Christ, he in his turn regards all his brethren as members of his body, or, like his members, desires to cherish, defend, and assist them, not that the duties of faith and charity can now be perfected in us, but because it behaves us to contend and seek, with all our heart, daily to increase our faith.

41. Who is "worthy"?

In seeking to prepare for eating, worthily, men have often dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and yet have in no degree attained the end. They have said that those eat unworthily who are in a state of grace. Being in a state of grace, they have interpreted to be pure and free from all sin. By this definition, all the men that ever have been and are upon the earth, were debarred from the use of this sacrament. For if we are to seek our worthiness from ourselves, it is all over with us; only despair and fatal ruin await us. Though we struggle to the utmost, we will not only make no progress, but then be most unworthy after we have laboured most to make ourselves worthy.

To cure this ulcer, they have devised a mode of procuring worthiness viz., after having, as far as we can, made an examination, and taken an account of all our actions, to expiate our unworthiness by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Of the nature of this expiation we have spoken at the proper place, (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 2, 17, 27.) As far as regards our present object, I say that such things give poor and evanescent comfort to alarmed and downcast consciences, struck with terror at their sins. For if the Lord, by his prohibition, admits none to partake of his Supper but the righteous and innocent, every man would require to be cautious before feeling secure of that righteousness of his own which he is told that God requires. But how are we to be assured that those who have done what in them lay, have discharged their duty to God? Even were we assured of this who would venture to assure himself that he had done what in him lay? Thus there being no certain security for our worthiness, access to the Supper would always be excluded by the fearful interdict, "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself."

42. Faith and love requisite, but not perfection

It is now easy to judge what is the nature, and who is the author, of that doctrine which prevails in the Papacy, and which by its inhuman austerity deprives and robs wretched sinners, oppressed with sorrow and trembling, of the consolation of this sacrament, a sacrament in which all that is delightful in the gospel was set before them. Certainly the devil could have no shorter method of destroying men than by thus infatuating them, and so excluding them from the taste and savour of this food with which their most merciful Father in heaven had been pleased to feed them. Therefore, lest we should rush over such a precipice, let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, and bounty to the poor; while to the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found, it would be of no value. For while Christ is therein given us for food, we perceive that without him we fail, pine, and waste away, just as hunger destroys the vigour of the body. Next, as he is given for life, we perceive that without him we are certainly dead. Wherefore, the best and only worthiness which we can bring to God, is to offer him our own vileness, and, if I may so speak, unworthiness that his mercy may make us worthy; to despond in ourselves, that we may be consoled in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be elevated by him; to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; to aspire, moreover, to the unity which he recommends in the Supper; and, as he makes us all one in himself, to desire to have all one soul, one heart, one tongue. If we ponder and meditate on these things, we may be shaken but will never be overwhelmed by such considerations as these, how shall we, who are devoid of all good, polluted by the defilements of sin, and half dead, worthily eat the body of the Lord? We shall rather consider that we, who are poor, are coming to a benevolent giver, sick to a physician, sinful to the author of righteousness, in fine, dead to him who gives life; that worthiness which is commanded by God, consists especially in faith, which places all things in Christ, nothing in ourselves, and in charity, charity which, though imperfect, it may be sufficient to offer to God, that he may increase it, since it cannot be fully rendered.

Some, concurring with us in holding that worthiness consists in faith and charity, have widely erred in regard to the measure of worthiness, demanding a perfection of faith to which nothing can be added, and a charity equivalent to that which Christ manifested towards us. And in this way, just as the other class, they debar all men from access to this sacred feast. For, were their view well founded, every one who receives must receive unworthily, since all, without exception, are guilty, and chargeable with imperfection. And certainly it were too stupid, not to say idiotical, to require to the receiving of the sacrament a perfection which would render the sacrament vain and superfluous, because it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the infirm and weak, to stir up, excite, stimulate, exercise the feeling of faith and charity, and at the same time correct the deficiency of both.

43. On the proper celebration of the Lord's Supper

In regard to the external form of the ordinance, whether or not believers are to take into their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given to him; whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbour; whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church, though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient Church for all to receive into their hand. And Christ said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves" (Luke 22: 17.)

History relates that leavened and ordinary bread was used before the time of Alexander the Bishop of Rome, who was the first that was delighted with unleavened bread: for what reason I see not, unless it was to draw the wondering eyes of the populace by the novelty of the spectacle, more than to train them in sound religion. I appeal to all who have the least zeal for piety, whether they do not evidently perceive both how much more brightly the glory of God is here displayed and how much more abundant spiritual consolation is felt by believers than in these frigid and histrionic follies, which have no other use than to impose on the gazing populace. They call it restraining the people by religion, when, stupid and infatuated, they are drawn hither and thither by superstition. Should any one choose to defend such inventions by antiquity, I am not unaware how ancient is the use of Christ and exorcism in baptism, and how, not long after the age of the apostles, the Supper was tainted with adulteration; such, indeed, is the forwardness of human confidence, which cannot restrain itself, but is always sporting and wantoning in the mysteries of God. But let us remember that God sets so much value on obedience to his word, that, by it, he would have us to judge his angels and the whole world (I Cor. 6:2-3; Gal. 1:8).

All this mass of ceremonies being abandoned, the sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week. The commencement should be with public prayer; next a sermon should be delivered: then the minister, having placed bread and wine on the table, should read the institution of the Supper. He should next explain the promises which are therein given; and, at the same time, keep back from communion all those who are debarred by the prohibition of the Lord. He should afterwards pray that the Lord, with the kindness with which he has bestowed this sacred food upon us, would also form and instruct us to receive it with faith and gratitude; and, as we are of ourselves unworthy, would make us worthy of the feast by his mercy. Here, either a psalm should be sung, or something read, while the faithful, in order, communicate at the sacred feast, the minister breaking the bread, and giving it to the people. The Supper being ended, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith, and confession of faith, to charity, and lives becoming Christians. Lastly, thanks should be offered, and the praises of God should be sung. This being done, the Church should be dismissed in peace.

44. The Lord's Supper should be celebrated frequently

What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a year, and that perfunctorily, (as is now commonly the custom;) but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith: stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. As often as we communicate in the symbol of our Saviour's body, as if a pledge were given and received, we mutually bind ourselves to all the offices of love, that none of us may do anything to offend his brother, or omit anything by which he can assist him when necessity demands, and opportunity occurs.

That such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, we are informed by Luke in the Acts, when he says that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers," (Acts 2: 42.) Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. We may gather from Paul that this was the order observed by the Corinthians, and it is certain that this was the practice many ages after.

Hence, by the ancient canons, which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus, after the consecration was made, all were to communicate who did not wish to be without the pale of the Church. And in those ancient canons, which bear the name of Apostolical, it is said, that those who continue not to the end, and partake not of the sacred communion, are to be corrected as causing disquiet to the Church. In the Council of Antioch it was decreed, that those who enter the Church, hear the Scriptures, and abstain from communion, are to be removed from the Church until they amend their fault. And although, in the first Council of Tholouse, this was mitigated, or at least stated in milder terms, yet there also it was decreed, that those who, after hearing the sermon, never communicated, were to be admonished, and if they still abstained after admonition, were to be excluded.

45. Augustine and Chrysostom on the duty of participation

By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion, as handed down by the apostles themselves; and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies: "The sacrament of the unity of our Lord's body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord's table; and at that table some partake to life, and others to destruction," (August. Tract. 26, in Joann. 6.) And in the first Epistle to Januarius he says: "Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord; others receive it on certain days: in some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered; in others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord's day: in others, on the Lord's day only." But since, as we have said, the people were sometimes remiss, holy men urged them with severe rebukes, that they might not seem to connive at their sluggishness. Of this we have an example in Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Hom. 26.) "It was not said to him who dishonoured the feast, Why have you taken your seat? But how camest thou in?" (Matth. 22: 12.) Whoever partakes not of the sacred rites is wicked and impudent in being present: should any one who was invited to a feast come in, wash his hands, take his seat, and seem to prepare to eat, and thereafter taste nothing, would he not, I ask, insult both the feast and the entertainer? So you, standing among those who prepare themselves by prayer to take the sacred food, profess to be one of the number by the mere fact of your not going away, and yet you do not partake, - would it not have been better not to have made your appearance? I am unworthy, you say. Then neither were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which is the preparation for taking the sacred mystery."

46. Communicating only once a year condemned

Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of the decree, though it is not possible to believe that it was the same as we now have it. It may be, that as times then were, he did not, by his ordinance, consult ill for the Church. For there cannot be a doubt that at that time the sacred Supper was dispensed to the faithful at every meeting; nor can it be doubted that a great part of them communicated. But as it scarcely ever happened that all could communicate at the same time, and it was necessary that those who were mingled with the profane and idolaters, should testify their faith by some external symbol, this holy man, with a view to order and government, had appointed that day, that on it the whole of Christendom might give a confession of their faith by partaking of the Lord's Supper. The ordinance of Zephyrinus, which was otherwise good, posterity perverted, when they made a fixed law of one communion in the year. The consequence is, that almost all, when they have once communicated as if they were discharged as to all the rest of the year, sleep on secure. It ought to have been far otherwise. Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually feed. No one, indeed, ought to be forced, but all ought to be exhorted and stimulated; the torpor of the sluggish, also ought to be rebuked that all, like persons famishing, should come to the feast. It was not without cause, therefore, I complained, at the outset, that this practice had been introduced by the wile of the devil; a practice which, in prescribing one day in the year, makes the whole year one of sloth. We see, indeed, that this perverse abuse had already crept in in the time of Chrysostom; but we, also, at the same time, see how much it displeased him. For he complains in bitter terms, in the passage which I lately quoted, that there is so great an inequality in this matter, that they did not approach often, at other times of the year, even when prepared, but only at Easter, though unprepared. Then he exclaims: "O custom! O presumption! In vain then, is the daily oblation made: in vain do we stand at the altar. There is none who partakes along with us." So far is he from having approved the practice by interposing his authority to it.

(Withdrawal of the cup from the lay people condemned, 47-50)
47. Refutation of "communion in one kind"

From the same forge proceeded another constitution, which snatched or robbed a half of the Supper from the greater part of the people of God, namely the symbol of blood, which, interdicted to laics and profane, (such are the titles which they give to God's heritage (I Peter 5:3),) became the peculiar possession of a few shaven and anointed individuals. The edict of the eternal God is, that all are to drink (Matt. 26:27). This an upstart dares to antiquate and abrogate by a new and contrary law, proclaiming that all are not to drink.

And that such legislators may not seem to fight against their God without any ground, they make a pretext of the dangers which might happen if the sacred cup were given indiscriminately to all: as if these had not been observed and provided for by the eternal wisdom of God.

Then they reason acutely, forsooth, that the one is sufficient for the two. For if the body is, as they say, the whole Christ, who cannot be separated from his body, then the blood includes the body by concomitance. Here we see how far our sense accords with God, when to any extent whatever it begins to rage and wanton with loosened reins. The Lord pointing to the bread says, "This is my body." Then pointing to the cup, he calls it his blood. The audacity of human reason objects and says, The bread is the blood, the wine is the body, as if the Lord had without reason distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and signs; and it had ever been heard that the body of Christ or the blood is called God and man. Certainly, if he had meant to designate himself wholly he might have said, It is I, according to the Scriptural mode of expression, and not "This is my body," "This is my blood." But wishing to succour the weakness of our faith, he placed the cup apart from the bread, to show that he suffices not less for drink than for food. Now, if one part be taken away, we can only find the half of the elements in what remains. Therefore, though it were true, as they pretend, that the blood is in the bread, and, on the other hand, the body in the cup, by concomitance, yet they deprive the pious of that confirmation of faith which Christ delivered as necessary. Bidding adieu, therefore, to their subtleties, let us retain the advantage which, by the ordinance of Christ, is obtained by a double pledge.

48.False argument that the apostles only as "sacrificers" received the cup

I am aware, indeed, how the ministers of Satan, whose usual practice is to hold the Scriptures in derisions here cavil. First, they allege that from a simple fact we are not to draw a rule which is to be perpetually obligatory on the Church. But they state an untruth when they call it a simple fact. For Christ not only gave the cup, but appointed that the apostles should do so in future. For his words contain the command, "Drink ye all of it." And Paul relates, that it was so done, and recommends it as a fixed institution (I Cor. 11:25).

Another subterfuge is, that the apostles alone were admitted by Christ to partake of this sacred Supper, because he had already selected and chosen them to the priesthood.

I wish they would answer the five following questions, which they cannot evade, and which easily refute them and their lies.

First, By what oracle was this solution so much at variance with the word of God revealed to them? Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus, but it does not so derogate from the dignity of Christ as to call them priests. Of this appellation we shall afterwards speak in its own place. Although he then gave to twelve, he commanded them to "do this;" in other words, to distribute thus among themselves.

Secondly, Why during that purer age, from the days of the apostles downward for a thousand years, did all, without exception, partake of both symbols? Did the primitive Church not know who the guests were whom Christ would have admitted to his Supper? It were the most shameless impudence to carp and quibble here. We have extant ecclesiastical histories, we have the writings of the Fathers, which furnish clear proofs of this fact. "The flesh," says Tertullian, "feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be satiated by God," (Tertull. de Resort. Carnis.) "How," said Ambrose to Theodosius, "will you receive the sacred body of the Lord with such hands? how will you have the boldness to put the cup of precious blood to your lips?" Jerome speaks of "the priests who perform the Eucharist and distribute the Lord's blood to the people," (Heron. in Malach. cap. 2.) Chrysostom says, "Not as under the ancient law the priest ate a part and the people a part, but one body and one cup is set before all. All the things which belong to the Eucharist are common to the priest and the people," (Chrysost. in Cor. cap. 8, Hom. 18.) The same thing is attested by Augustine in numerous passages.

49. Reception by laymen maintained to a late date

But why dispute about a fact which is perfectly notorious? Look at all Greek and Latin writers. Passages of the same kind everywhere occur. Nor did this practice fall into desuetude so long as there was one particle of integrity in the Church. Gregory, whom you may with justice call the last Bishop of Rome, says that it was observed in his age. "What the blood of the Lamb is you have learned, not by hearing, but by drinking it. His blood is poured into the mouths of the faithful." Nay, four hundred years after his death, when all things had degenerated, the practice still remained. Nor was it regarded as the custom merely, but as an inviolable law. Reverence for the divine institution was then maintained, and they had no doubt of its being sacrilege to separate what the Lord had joined. For Gelasius thus speaks: "We find that some taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup. Undoubtedly let those persons, as they seem entangled by some strange superstition, either receive the whole sacrament, or be debarred from the whole. For the division of this mystery is not made without great sacrilege," (De Consec. Dist. 2.) Reasons were given by Cyprian, which surely ought to weigh with Christian minds. "How," says he, "do we teach or incite them to shed their blood in confessing Christ, if we deny his blood to those who are to serve; or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not previously admit them by right of communion in the Church, to drink the cup of the Lord?" (Cyprian, Serm. 5, de Lapses.) The attempt of the Canonists to restrict the decree of Gelasius to priests is a cavil too puerile to deserve refutation.

50. The words of Scripture plainly accord the cup to all

Thirdly, Why did our Saviour say of the bread simply, "Take, eat," and of the cup, "drink ye all of it," as if he had purposely intended to provide against the wile of Satan?

Fourthly, If, as they will have it, the Lord honoured priests only with his Supper, what man would ever have dared to call strangers, whom the Lord had excluded, to partake of it, and to partake of a gift which he had not in his power, without any command from him who alone could give it? Nay, what presumption do they show in the present day in distributing the symbol of Christ's body to the common people, if they have no command or example from the Lord?

Fifthly, Did Paul lie when he said to the Corinthians, "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you?" (1 Cor. 11: 23.) The thing delivered, he afterwards declares to be, that all should communicate promiscuously in both symbols. But if Paul received of the Lord that all were to be admitted without distinction, let those who drive away almost the whole people of God see from whom they have received, since they cannot now pretend to have their authority from God, with whom there is not "yea and nay," (2 Cor. 1: 19, 20.) And yet these abominations they dare to cloak with the name of the Church, and defend under this pretence, as if those Antichrists were the Church who so licentiously trample under foot, waste, and abrogate the doctrine and institutions of Christ, or as if the Apostolic Church, in which religion flourished in full vigour, were not the Church.