invisible presence, let us see how far it serves their cause. In the
first place, they cannot produce a single syllable from the Scriptures
to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted, what no
man of sound judgment will concede to them, that the body of Christ
cannot be given in the supper, without being concealed under the form of
bread. Now, so far is this from being an admitted axiom, that it is the
very point in dispute between them and us. And while they talk in this
way, they are constrained to attribute to Christ a double body, because,
upon their principle, he is visible in heaven, and at the same time, by
a special dispensation, is invisible in the sacred supper. Whether this
is correct or not, it is easy to judge from various passages of
Scripture, and particularly from the testimony of Peter; who says of
Christ, that “the heavens must receive him, until the times of
restitution of all things.”[1293] These men maintain that he is in all
places, but without any form. They object that it is unreasonable to
subject the nature of a glorified body to the laws of common nature. But
this objection leads to the extravagant notion of Servetus, which justly
deserves the detestation of all believers, that the body of Christ,
after his ascension, was absorbed in his Divinity. I will not assert,
that they hold this opinion; but if it be considered as one of the
attributes of the glorified body, to fill all places in an invisible
manner, it is evident that the corporeal substance must be destroyed,
and no difference will be left between the Divinity and the humanity.
Besides, if the body of Christ be multiform and variable, so as to
appear in one place, and to be invisible in another, what becomes of the
nature of a body which consists in having its proper dimensions? and
where is its unity? With far greater propriety Tertullian argues, that
the body of Christ was a true and natural body, because the emblem of it
is presented to us in the mystery of the supper, as a pledge and
assurance of spiritual life. And, indeed, it was of his glorified body,
that Christ said, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have.”[1294] We see how the truth of his body is
proved by the lips of Christ himself, because it can be felt and seen;
deprive it of these qualities, and it will cease to be a body. They are
always recurring to their subterfuge of the dispensation which they have
invented. But it is our duty to receive what Christ absolutely declares,
in such a manner, as to admit, without any exception, whatever he is
pleased to affirm. He proved that he was not a phantom, because he was
visible in his flesh. If that be taken away which he asserts to belong
to the nature of his body, will it not be necessary to frame a new
definition of a body? Now, with all their sophistry, they can extract
nothing to support their imaginary _dispensation_ from that passage of
Paul, where he says, that “From heaven we look for the Saviour, who
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his
glorious body.”[1295] For we cannot hope for a conformity to Christ in
those qualities which they attribute to him, which would make all our
bodies invisible and infinite; nor will they find a man foolish enough
to be persuaded to believe so great an absurdity. Let them, then, no
longer ascribe to the glorified body of Christ the property of being in
many places at once, or of being contained within no particular space.
In short, let them either deny the resurrection of the flesh, or admit
that Christ, though clothed with celestial glory, has not divested
himself of his flesh; for he will make us, in our flesh, partakers of
the same glory, as we shall enjoy a resurrection similar to his. For
what is there more clearly stated in any part of the Scripture, than
that as Christ really assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin,
and suffered in our flesh to atone for our sins, so he resumed the same
flesh, at his resurrection, and carried it up into heaven? For all the
hope that we have of our resurrection and ascension to heaven, is
founded on the resurrection and ascension of Christ; who, as Tertullian
says, “has taken the pledge of our resurrection into heaven with him.”
Now, how weak and faint would this hope be, if the real flesh of Christ
had not truly risen from the dead, and entered into the kingdom of
heaven! But it is essential to a real body, to have its particular form
and dimensions, and to be contained within some certain space. Let us
hear no more, then, of this ridiculous notion, which fastens the minds
of men, and Christ himself, to the bread. For what is the use of this
invisible presence concealed under the bread, but to lead those who
desire to be united to Christ, to confine their attention to that
symbol? But the Lord intended to withdraw, not only our eyes, but all
our senses, from the earth, when he forbade the woman to touch him,
because he was not yet ascended to his Father.[1296] When he saw Mary,
with pious affection and reverence, hastening to kiss his feet, there
was no reason for his disapprobation and prohibition of such an act,
before his ascension to heaven, except that heaven was the only place
where he chose to be sought. It is objected, that he was afterwards seen
by Stephen;[1297] but the answer is easy; for, in order to this, no
change of place was necessary to Christ, who could impart to the eyes of
his servant a supernatural perspicacity, capable of penetrating into
heaven. The same observation is applicable to his appearance to
Paul.[1298] They allege that Christ came out of the sepulchre, while the
sepulchre remained closed, and entered into the room where his disciples
were assembled, while the doors continued shut; but this contributes no
support to their error. For as the water was like a solid pavement,
forming a road for Christ when he walked on the lake, so it is no wonder
if the hardness of the stone gave way, to make him a passage; though it
is more probable that the stone removed at his command, and after his
departure returned to its place. And to enter while the doors remained
shut, does not imply his penetrating through the solid matter, but his
opening an entrance for himself by his Divine power, so that, in a
miraculous manner, he instantaneously stood in the midst of his
disciples, though the doors were shut. What they adduce from Luke, that
“he vanished out of the sight” of his two disciples, with whom he had
walked to Emmaus,[1299] is of no service to their cause, but is in
favour of ours; for, according to the testimony of the same evangelist,
when he joined these disciples, he assumed no new appearance in order to
conceal himself; but “their eyes were holden, that they should not know
him.”[1300] Our adversaries, however, not only transform Christ, to keep
him in the world, but they represent him as unlike himself, and
altogether different on earth from what he is in heaven. By such
extravagances, in short, they turn the body of Christ into a spirit,
though not by positive assertion, yet by direct implication; and not
content with this, they attribute to it qualities utterly incompatible
with each other; whence it follows, of necessity, that he must have two
bodies.
XXX. Though we should grant them what they contend for, respecting its
invisible presence, still this would be no proof of its infinity,
without which it will be a vain attempt to enclose Christ under the
bread. Unless the body of Christ be capable of being every where at
once, without any limitation of place, it will not be credible that it
is concealed under the bread in the sacred supper. It was this necessity
which caused them to introduce their monstrous notion of its ubiquity.
But it has been shown, by clear and strong testimonies of Scripture,
that the body of Christ was, like other human bodies, circumscribed by
certain dimensions; and its ascension to heaven made it evident that it
was not in all places, but that it left one place, when it removed to
another. Nor is the promise, “I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world,”[1301] to be applied, as they suppose it should be, to his
body. In the first place, on this supposition, there will be no such
perpetual connection, unless Christ dwells in us in a corporeal manner,
without the use of the sacramental supper; and therefore they have no
sufficient cause for contending so fiercely respecting the words of
Christ, in order to enclose Christ under the bread. In the next place,
the context evinces, that Christ there has not the most distant
reference to his flesh, but promises his disciples invincible aid to
sustain and defend them against all the assaults of Satan and the world.
For having assigned them a difficult province, to encourage them to
undertake it without hesitation, and to discharge it with undaunted
resolution, he supports them with the assurance of his presence; as
though he had said, they should never want his aid, which nothing could
overcome. Unless these men wished to involve every thing in confusion,
ought they not to distinguish the nature of this presence? It is evident
that some persons would rather incur the greatest disgrace by betraying
their ignorance, than relinquish even the least particle of their error.
I speak not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at
least more modest; but some are so carried away with the heat of
contention, as to affirm that, on account of the union of the two
natures in Christ, wherever his Divinity is, his flesh, which cannot be
separated from it, is there also; as if that union had mingled the two
natures so as to form some intermediate kind of being, which is neither
God nor man. This notion was maintained by Eutyches, and since his time
by Servetus. But it is clearly ascertained from the Scriptures, that in
the one person of Christ the two natures are united in such a manner,
that each retains its peculiar properties undiminished. That Eutyches
was justly condemned as a heretic, our adversaries will not deny; it is
surprising that they overlook the cause of his condemnation, which was,
that by taking away the difference between the two natures, and
insisting on the unity of the person, he made the Divinity human, and
deified the humanity. What absurdity, therefore, is it to mingle heaven
and earth together, rather than not to draw the body down from the
celestial sanctuary! They endeavour to justify themselves by adducing
these texts: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven;” and, “The only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him.”[1302] But it argues the same stupidity to disregard the
communication of properties, a term which was with good reason adopted
by the holy fathers in the early ages. When Paul says that “The Lord of
glory” was “crucified,”[1303] he certainly does not intend that Christ
suffered any thing in his Divinity, but that the same person, who
suffered as an abject and despised man, was also, as God, the Lord of
glory. In the same sense, the Son of man was in heaven; because the same
Christ, who, according to the flesh, dwelt on earth as the Son of man,
as God, was always in heaven. For this reason, in the same passage, he
represents himself as having descended from heaven, according to his
Divinity; not that his Divinity quitted heaven to confine itself in the
prison of the body; but because, though it filled all space, yet it
dwelt corporeally, or naturally, and in a certain ineffable manner, in
the humanity. It is a distinction common in the schools, and which I am
not ashamed to repeat, that though Christ is every where entire, yet all
that is in him is not every where. And I sincerely wish that the
schoolmen themselves had duly considered the meaning of this
observation; for then we should never have heard of their stupid notion
of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament. Therefore, our
Mediator, as he is every where entire, is always near to his people; and
in the sacred supper exhibits himself present in a peculiar manner, yet
not with all that belongs to him; because, as we have stated, his body
has been received into heaven, and remains there till he shall come to
judgment.
XXXI. They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence
of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the
bread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation
of the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be
present, unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his
presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us,
therefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place
Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down
from heaven. Let the readers judge on which side the truth lies. Only
let us hear no more of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the
sacrament, unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a
heavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the
earth, in order to be united to us.
XXXII. If any one inquire of me respecting the manner, I shall not be
ashamed to acknowledge, that it is a mystery too sublime for me to be
able to express, or even to comprehend; and, to be still more explicit,
I rather experience it, than understand it. Here, therefore, without any
controversy, I embrace the truth of God, on which I can safely rely. He
pronounces his flesh to be the food, and his blood the drink, of my
soul. I offer him my soul, to be nourished with such aliment. In his
sacred supper, he commands me, under the symbols of bread and wine, to
take, and eat, and drink, his body and blood. I doubt not that he truly
presents, and that I receive them. Only I reject the absurdities which
appear to be either degrading to his majesty, or inconsistent with the
reality of his human nature, and are at the same time repugnant to the
word of God, which informs us that Christ has been received into the
glory of the celestial kingdom, where he is exalted above every
condition of the world, and which is equally careful to attribute to his
human nature the properties of real humanity. Nor ought this to seem
incredible or unreasonable, because, as the kingdom of Christ is wholly
spiritual, so his communications with his Church are not at all to be
regulated by the order of the present world; or, to use the words of
Augustine, “This mystery, as well as others, is celebrated by man, but
in a Divine manner; it is administered on earth, but in a heavenly
manner.” The presence of Christ’s body, I say, is such as the nature of
the sacrament requires; where we affirm that it appears with so much
virtue and efficacy, as not only to afford our minds an undoubted
confidence of eternal life, but also to give us an assurance of the
resurrection and immortality of our bodies. For they are vivified by his
immortal flesh, and in some degree participate his immortality. Those
who go beyond this in their hyperbolical representations, merely obscure
the simple and obvious truth by such intricacies. If any person be not
yet satisfied, I would request him to consider, that we are now treating
of a sacrament, every part of which ought to be referred to faith. Now,
we feed our faith by this participation of the body of Christ which we
have mentioned, as fully as they do, who bring him down from heaven. At
the same time, I candidly confess, that I reject that mixture of the
flesh of Christ with our souls, or that transfusion of it into us, which
they teach; because it is sufficient for us that Christ inspires life
into our souls from the substance of his flesh, and even infuses his own
life into us, though his flesh never actually enters into us. I may also
remark, that the analogy of faith, to which Paul directs us to conform
every interpretation of the Scripture, is in this case, beyond all
doubt, eminently in our favour. Let the adversaries of so clear a truth
examine by what rule of faith they regulate themselves. “He that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of
God.”[1304] Such persons, though they may conceal it, or may not observe
it, do, in effect, deny the reality of his flesh.
XXXIII. The same judgment is to be formed of our participation, which
they suppose not to be enjoyed at all, unless the flesh of Christ be
swallowed in the bread. But we do no small injury to the Holy Spirit,
unless we believe that our communion with the flesh and blood of Christ
is the effect of his incomprehensible influence. Even if the virtue of
this mystery, such as we have represented it, and as it was understood
by the ancient Church, had received the consideration justly due to it,
for four hundred years past, there would have been quite enough to
satisfy us, and the door would have been shut against many pernicious
errors, which have kindled dreadful dissensions, by which the Church has
been miserably agitated in the present, as well as past ages. But
sophistical men insist on a hyperbolical kind of presence, which is
never taught in the Scripture; and they contend as eagerly for this
foolish and absurd imagination, as if the whole of religion consisted in
the enclosure of Christ in the bread. It principally concerns us to know
how the body of Christ, which was once delivered for us, is made ours,
and how we are made partakers of his blood which was shed; for the
entire possession of Christ crucified consists in an enjoyment of all
his benefits. Now, leaving these things, which are of such great
importance, and even neglecting and forgetting them, these sophists take
no pleasure but in this thorny question; how the body of Christ is
concealed under the bread, or under the form of the bread. They falsely
pretend that all that we teach respecting a spiritual participation, is
contrary to what they call the true and real participation; because we
regard nothing but the manner, which, in their opinion, is corporeal, as
they enclose Christ in the bread, but in ours is spiritual, because the
secret influence of the Spirit is the bond which unites us to Christ.
Nor is there any more truth in their other objection, that we attend to
nothing but the fruit or effect which believers experience from feeding
on the flesh of Christ. For we have already said, that Christ himself is
the matter or substance of the sacred supper, and that it is in
consequence of this, that we are absolved from our sins by the sacrifice
of his death, are washed in his blood, and by his resurrection are
raised to the hope of the heavenly life. But the foolish imagination, of
which Lombard was the author, has perverted their minds, while they have
supposed the sacrament to consist in eating the flesh of Christ. For
these are his words: “The sacrament, without the thing, consists in the
forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and
blood of Christ; the thing, without the sacrament, is his mystical
flesh.” Again, a little after: “The thing signified and contained is the
proper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and not contained, is his
mystical body.” With his distinction between the flesh of Christ, and
the power which it has to nourish, I fully agree; but his notion, of
what is a sacrament, and as contained under the bread, is an error not
to be endured. Hence proceeded a false idea of sacramental eating,
because they supposed the body of Christ to be eaten by impious and
profane persons, notwithstanding they were strangers to him. But the
flesh of Christ itself, in the mystery of the supper, is as much a
spiritual thing, as our eternal salvation. Whence we conclude, that
persons who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, can no more eat the
flesh of Christ, than drink wine which has no taste. It is certainly
offering an insult, and doing violence to Christ, to attribute to him a
body all feeble and dead, which is promiscuously distributed to
unbelievers; and it is expressly contradicted by his own words: “He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him.”[1305] They reply, that the discourse from which this text is
quoted does not treat of sacramental eating; and this I concede to them;
only let them not be perpetually striking on the same rock, that the
flesh of Christ may be eaten without any benefit. But I would wish them
to inform me how long they retain it after they have eaten it. Here I
believe they will find it impossible to escape. But they object, that
the truth of the promises of God can sustain no diminution or failure
from the ingratitude of men. This I admit; and I also maintain, that the
virtue of this mystery remains unimpaired, notwithstanding wicked men
exert their utmost efforts to destroy it. It is one thing, however, for
the body of Christ to be offered, and another for it to be received.
Christ presents this spiritual meat and spiritual drink to all; some
receive them with avidity, others fastidiously reject them; shall their
rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will
plead, that their sentiment is supported by this similitude—that the
flesh of Christ, though it be not relished by unbelievers, nevertheless
still continues to be flesh. But I deny that it can ever be eaten
without the taste of faith; or, if the language of Augustine be
preferred, I deny that men carry away from the sacrament any more than
they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus, nothing is taken from the
sacrament, but its truth and efficacy remain unimpaired, notwithstanding
the wicked depart empty from its external participation. If our
adversaries object again, that it derogates from these words, “This is
my body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread, and nothing more, the
answer is easy—That God will have his veracity discovered, not in the
reception itself, but in the constancy of his goodness, since he is
ready to impart to the unworthy, and even liberally offers to them, that
which they reject. And this is the perfection of the sacrament, which
the whole world cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are
as truly given to the unworthy, as to the elect and faithful people of
God; but it is likewise true, that as rain, falling upon a hard rock,
runs off from it without penetrating into the stone, thus the wicked, by
their obduracy, repel the grace of God, so that it does not enter into
their hearts. Besides, a reception of Christ, without faith, is as great
an absurdity, as for seed to germinate in the fire. Their inquiry, how
Christ came for condemnation to some, unless they receive him
unworthily, is a groundless cavil; for we nowhere read that the
perdition of man is owing to an unworthy reception of Christ, but rather
to a rejection of him. Nor can they derive any assistance from the
parable in which Christ speaks of some seed springing up among thorns,
and being afterwards choked and destroyed; for he is there showing what
value belongs to that temporary faith, which our adversaries suppose to
be unnecessary to a participation of the flesh and blood of Christ,
placing Judas, in this respect, on an equality with Peter. Their error
is rather refuted by another part of the same parable, in which Christ
speaks of some seed as having fallen by the way-side, and some on stony
ground, neither of which took any root.[1306] Whence it follows, that
the obduracy of unbelievers is such an obstacle, that Christ does not
reach them. Whoever desires our salvation to be promoted by this
mystery, will find nothing more proper than that believers, conducted to
the fountain should derive life from the Son of God. But the dignity of
it is sufficiently magnified, when we remember, that it is a medium by
which we are incorporated into Christ; or by which, after our
incorporation into him, the connection is more and more strengthened,
till he perfectly unites us with himself, in the heavenly life. They
object, that Paul ought not to have made unbelievers “guilty of the body
and blood of the
Lord,”[1307] unless they had been partakers of them. But I answer, that
they are not condemned for having eaten and drunk his body and blood,
but only for having profaned the mystery, by trampling under foot the
pledge of our holy union with God, which ought to have been received by
them with reverence.
XXXIV. Now, because Augustine is the principal among the ancient fathers
who has asserted this point of doctrine, that the sacraments sustain no
diminution, and that the grace which they represent is not frustrated by
the unbelief or wickedness of men, it will be useful to adduce his own
words, which will clearly prove that those who expose the body of Christ
to be eaten by dogs,[1308] are chargeable with an injudicious and
culpable perversion of his meaning, in applying it to the present
argument. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the
wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without any influence of his
Spirit, or any effect of his grace. Augustine, on the contrary,
carefully examining these words, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life,”[1309] says, “This is the virtue of the
sacrament, not the mere visible sacrament; and that internally, not
externally; he who eats with his heart, and not with his teeth;” from
which he concludes that the sacrament of the union which we have with
the body and blood of Christ, is presented in the sacred supper, to some
to life, to others to perdition; but that the thing signified by the
sacrament is only given to life to all who partake of it, and in no case
to perdition. To preclude any cavil here, that the thing signified is
not the body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from
the body, he obviates such misrepresentations by the use of the
contrasted epithets of _visible_ and _invisible_; for the body of Christ
cannot be comprehended under the former. Hence it follows, that
unbelievers receive nothing but the visible symbol. And, for the more
complete removal of every doubt, after having said that this bread
requires the hunger of the inner man, he adds, “Moses, and Aaron, and
Phinehas, and many others who ate the manna, were acceptable to God.
Why? Because they spiritually understood the visible food, they
spiritually hungered, they spiritually ate, that they might be
spiritually satisfied. For we also, in the present day, have received
visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the
sacrament is another.” A little after he says, “Therefore he who abides
not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, spiritually neither
eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he may carnally and visibly
press the sign of the body and blood with his teeth.” Here, again, we
find the visible sign opposed to the spiritual eating; which contradicts
that error, that the invisible body of Christ is really eaten
sacramentally, though it be not eaten spiritually. We are informed also
that nothing is granted to the profane and impure, beyond the visible
reception of the sign. Hence that well known observation of his, that
the other disciples ate _the bread which was the Lord_, but that Judas
merely ate _the Lord’s bread_; by which he clearly excludes unbelievers
from the participation of the body and blood. And to the same purpose is
what he says in another place: “Why do you wonder if the bread of Christ
was given to Judas to enslave him to the devil, when you see, on the
other hand, that the messenger of Satan was given to Paul to make him
perfect in Christ?”[1310] He says, indeed, in another place, “That the
sacramental bread was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, He
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself;[1311] and that they could not, therefore, be affirmed to have
received nothing, because they had received amiss.” But his meaning is
more fully explained in another passage. For professedly undertaking to
describe how the body of Christ is eaten by the wicked and profligate,
who confess the Christian faith with their lips while they deny it in
their actions, and that in opposition to the opinion of some who
supposed them to eat not only the sacramental symbol, but the substance
itself, he says, “They must not be considered as eating the body of
Christ, because they are not to be numbered among the members of Christ.
For, to mention nothing else, they cannot, at the same time, be the
members of Christ and the members of a harlot. And where the Lord
himself says, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth
in me, and I in him;[1312] he shows what it is to eat his body, not
merely in a sacramental way, but in truth; for this is to dwell in
Christ, that Christ may dwell in us. This is the same as if he had said,
Whoever dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or
think he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.” Let the readers consider
the opposition here stated between eating _merely in a sacramental way_,
and _in truth_, and there will remain no doubt respecting his meaning.
He confirms the same with equal perspicuity in the following passage:
“Prepare not your jaws, but your heart; it is for this that the supper
is enjoined. Behold, we believe in Christ when we receive him by faith;
in receiving him, we know what we think; we take a bit of bread, and our
hearts are satisfied. We are fed, therefore, not by what we see, but by
what we believe.” Here, also, what the wicked partake of he restricts to
the visible sign, and pronounces that Christ is only received by faith.
So, in another place, he expressly remarks that the good and the wicked
partake of the elements in common, and excludes the latter from the true
participation of the body of Christ. For, if they had enjoyed the
substance itself, he would not have been entirely silent on that which
would have strengthened his argument. In another place also, treating of
the eating, and the benefit of it, he concludes thus: “Then will the
body and blood of Christ be life to every one, if that which is visibly
received in the sacrament, be, in the truth which is signified,
spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.” Let those, therefore, who, in
order to agree with Augustine, make unbelievers partakers of the flesh
and blood of Christ, exhibit to us the body of Christ in a visible
manner, since he pronounces the whole truth of the sacrament to be
spiritual. And the evident conclusion from his language is, that the
sacramental eating is nothing more than eating the visible and external
sign, when unbelief precludes the entrance of the substance. If the body
of Christ could be eaten truly, without being eaten spiritually, what
could be the meaning of Augustine, when he said, “You are not to eat
this body which you see, and to drink the blood which will be shed by
those who shall crucify me. I have appointed a sacrament for you;
spiritually understood, it shall vivify you.” He certainly did not mean
to deny that the same body which Christ offered in sacrifice is
exhibited in the supper; but he designates the mode of participating in
it—that though it has been received into celestial glory, it inspires us
with life by the secret influence of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that
he frequently speaks of the body of Christ as eaten by unbelievers, but
he explains his meaning by adding that it is done sacramentally; and, in
another place, he describes the spiritual eating as not consisting in a
corporeal swallowing of the grace of God. And that my adversaries may
not charge me with a wish to overwhelm them by an accumulation of
passages, I would request them to inform me how they can evade that one
declaration of his, where he says, “that the sacraments realize what
they represent in the elect alone.” Surely they will not dare to deny
that the bread represents the body of Christ. Hence it follows, that the
reprobate are excluded from the participation of it. The following
passage of Cyril also shows him to have been of the same opinion: “As
when any one pours melted wax upon other wax, the whole will be mingled
together into one mass, so it is necessary to any person’s reception of
the body and blood of Christ, for him to be united with Christ, so that
Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ.” These words, I think,
sufficiently prove, that those who eat the body of Christ merely in a
sacramental way are deprived of the true and real participation of it,
as the body itself cannot be separated from its efficacious power; and
yet that this is no impeachment of the truth of the promises of God, who
still continues to send us rain from heaven, though rocks and stones
imbibe none of the moisture.
XXXV. This knowledge will also easily dissuade us from the carnal
adoration which has been introduced into the sacrament by the perverse
temerity of some, who reasoned in this manner: If the body be there,
consequently the soul and the Divinity are there together with the body,
for they cannot be separated from it; therefore Christ ought to be
adored there. In the first place, what will they do, if we refuse to
admit what they call _concomitance_? For, however they may urge the
absurdity of separating the soul and the Divinity from the body, what
man in his senses can be persuaded that the body of Christ is Christ?
They consider it, indeed, as fully demonstrated by their arguments. But
as Christ speaks distinctly of his body and blood, without specifying
the nature of the presence, how can they establish what they wish by
that which is itself doubtful? What then? If their consciences happen to
be exercised with any peculiar affliction, will they not, with all their
syllogisms, be confounded and overwhelmed; when they shall perceive
themselves to be destitute of the certain word of God, which furnishes
the only support for our souls when they are called to give an account,
and without which they sink in a moment; when they shall reflect that
the doctrine and examples of the apostles are against them, and that
they are themselves the sole authors of their error? To such reflections
will be added other sentiments of compunction, and those by no means
inconsiderable. What! was it a thing of no consequence to adore God in
this form, without any such thing being enjoined upon us? In a case
where the true worship of God was concerned, ought that to have been so
lightly undertaken, which not a word in the Scripture could be found to
sanction? But if, with becoming humility, they had kept all their
thoughts in subjection to the word of God, they would certainly have
listened to what Christ said, “Take, eat, drink,” and would have obeyed
this command, which enjoins the sacrament to be taken, not to be adored.
Those who, as the Lord has commanded, receive it without adoration, are
assured that they do not deviate from the Divine command; and such an
assurance is the best satisfaction we can have in any thing in which we
engage. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read, not that
they prostrated themselves in adoration, but that, as they were sitting
at the table, they took, and did eat. They have the practice of the
apostolic Church, in which Luke states that the communion of believers
consisted, not in adoration, but in “the breaking of bread.”[1313] They
have the apostolic doctrine with which Paul instructed the Church of the
Corinthians, accompanying it with this declaration: “I have received of
the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.”[1314]
XXXVI. All these things lead the pious reader to consider how unsafe it
is, in matters of such importance, to leave the pure word of God for the
reveries of our own brains. The remarks which have already been made,
ought to relieve our minds from every difficulty on this subject. For,
in order to a due reception of Christ in the sacrament, it is necessary
for pious souls to be elevated to heaven. If it be the design of the
sacrament to assist the mind of man, which is otherwise weak, that it
may be enabled to rise to discover the sublimity of spiritual
mysteries,—those who confine themselves to the external sign, wander
from the right way of seeking Christ. What, then, shall we deny it to be
a superstitious worship, when men prostrate themselves before a piece of
bread, to adore Christ in it? There is no doubt that the Council of Nice
intended to guard against this evil, when it prohibited Christians from
having their attention humbly fixed on the visible signs. And this was
the only reason for that custom in the ancient Church, that, before the
consecration, one of the deacons should, with an audible voice, admonish
the people to have their _hearts above_. The Scripture itself, also, in
addition to the particular account which it gives us of the ascension of
Christ, by which he removed his corporeal presence from the view and
society of men, in order to divest us of every carnal idea respecting
him, whenever it mentions him, calls us to lift our minds upwards, and
to seek for him seated “at the right hand of God.”[1315] According to
this rule, it was our duty to adore him spiritually in the glory of
heaven, rather than to invent such a dangerous kind of adoration,
involving such gross and carnal conceptions of God. Wherefore, those who
have invented the adoration of the sacrament, have not only dreamed it
of themselves, without the sanction of the Scripture, in which not the
least mention of it can be found, though, if it had been agreeable to
God, it would not have been omitted; but even in direct opposition to
the Scripture, forsaking the living God, they have fabricated a new
deity, according to their own wayward inclinations. For what is
idolatry, if it be not to worship the gifts instead of the giver
himself? In which they have fallen into a double sin; for the honour has
been taken away from God, to be transferred to the creature; and God
himself has also been dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of
his gift, when his holy sacrament has been made an execrable idol. Let
us, on the contrary, lest we fall into the same danger, fix our ears,
our eyes, our minds, and our tongues, entirely on the sacred doctrine of
God. For that is the school of the Holy Spirit, the best of all
teachers; whose instructions require nothing to be added from any other
quarter, and omit nothing of which we ought not to be willing to remain
in ignorance.
XXXVII. Now, as superstition, when it has once gone beyond the proper
limits, proceeds in sinning without end, they have wandered still
further; they have invented ceremonies altogether incompatible with the
institution of the sacred supper, for the sole purpose of giving divine
honours to the sign. When we remonstrate with them, they reply, that
they pay this veneration to Christ. In the first place, if this were
done in the supper, I would still say that that is the only legitimate
adoration, which terminates not in the sign, but is directed to Christ
enthroned in heaven. Now, what pretence have they for alleging that they
worship Christ in the bread, when they have no promise of such a thing?
They consecrate their _host_, as they call it, to carry it about in
procession, to display it in pomp, and to exhibit it in a box, to be
seen, adored, and invoked by the people. I inquire how they consider it
to be rightly consecrated. They immediately adduce these words: “This is
my body.” I object, that it was said at the same time. “Take and eat.”
And I have sufficient reason for this; for when a promise is annexed to
a precept, it is so included in the precept, that, separated from it, it
ceases to be a promise at all. This shall be further elucidated by a
similar example. The Lord gave a command, when he said, “Call upon me;”
he added a promise, “I will deliver thee.”[1316] If any one should
invoke Peter or Paul, and boast of this promise, will not his conduct be
universally condemned? And wherein would this differ from the conduct of
those who suppress the command to eat, and lay hold of the mutilated
promise, “This is my body,” in order to misapply it to ceremonies
foreign from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, then, that this
promise is given to those who observe the commandment connected with it,
but that they are entirely unsupported by the word of God, who transfer
the sacrament to any other usage. We have already shown how the mystery
of the supper promotes our faith before God. But as God here not only
recalls to our remembrance the vast exuberance of his goodness, but
delivers it, as it were, into our hands, as we have already declared,
and excites us to acknowledge it, so he also admonishes us not to be
ungrateful for such a profusion of beneficence, but, on the contrary, to
magnify it with the praises it deserves, and to celebrate it with
thanksgivings. Therefore, when he gave the institution of this sacrament
to the apostles, he said to them, “This do in remembrance of me;”[1317]
which Paul explains to be “showing the Lord’s death;”[1318] that is,
publicly, and all together, as with one mouth, to confess that all our
confidence of life and salvation rests on the death of the Lord; that we
may glorify him by our confession, and by our example may exhort others
to give him the same glory. Here, again, we see the object to which the
sacrament tends, which is, to exercise us in a remembrance of the death
of Christ. For the command which we have received, to “show the Lord’s
death till he come” to judgment, is no other than to declare, by the
confession of our lips, what our faith has acknowledged in the
sacrament, that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use
of the sacrament, which relates to external confession.
XXXVIII. In the third place, the Lord intended it to serve us as an
exhortation, and no other could be better adapted to animate and
influence us in the most powerful manner to purity and sanctity of life,
as well as to charity, peace, and concord. For there the Lord
communicates his body to us in such a manner that he becomes completely
one with us, and we become one with him. Now, as he has only one body,
of which he makes us all partakers, it follows, of necessity, that, by
such participation, we also are all made one body; and this union is
represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. For as it
is composed of many grains, mixed together in such a manner that one
cannot be separated or distinguished from another,—in the same manner we
ought, likewise, to be connected and united together, by such an
agreement of minds, as to admit of no dissension or division between us.
This I prefer expressing in the language of Paul: “The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For
we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of
that one bread.”[1319] We have derived considerable benefit from the
sacrament, if this thought be impressed and engraven upon our minds,
that it is impossible for us to wound, despise, reject, injure, or in
any way to offend one of our brethren, but we, at the same time, wound,
despise, reject, injure, and offend Christ in him; that we have no
discord with our brethren without being, at the same time, at variance
with Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving him in our
brethren; that such care as we take of our own body, we ought to
exercise the same care of our brethren, who are members of our body;
that as no part of our body can be in any pain without every other part
feeling correspondent sensations, so we ought not to suffer our brother
to be afflicted with any calamity without our sympathizing in the same.
Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so frequently calls
this sacrament “the bond of charity.” For what more powerful stimulus
could be employed to excite mutual charity among us, than when Christ,
giving himself to us, not only invites us by his example mutually to
devote ourselves to the promotion of one another’s welfare, but also, by
making himself common to all, makes us all to be one with himself?
XXXIX. This furnishes the best confirmation of what I have stated
before, that there is no true administration of the sacrament without
the word. For whatever advantage accrues to us from the sacred supper
requires the word; whether we are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in
confession, or excited to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more
preposterous, therefore, can be done with respect to the supper, than to
convert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under the tyranny of
the pope. For they have maintained that all the validity of the
consecration depends on the intention of the priests, as if it had
nothing to do with the people, to whom the mystery ought principally to
be explained. They fell into this error, for want of observing that
those promises on which the consecration rests, are not directed to the
elements themselves, but to the persons who receive them. Christ does
not address the bread, to command it to become his body; but enjoins his
disciples to eat, and promises them the communication of his body and
blood. Nor does Paul teach any other order than that the promises should
be offered to believers, together with the bread and the cup. And this
is the truth. We are not to imagine any magical incantation, or think it
sufficient to have muttered over the words, as if they were heard by the
elements; but we are to understand those words, by which the elements
are consecrated, to be a lively preaching, which edifies the hearers,
which penetrates their minds, which is deeply impressed upon their
hearts, which exerts its efficacy in the accomplishment of that which it
promises. These considerations clearly show that the reservation of the
sacrament, insisted upon by many persons, for the purpose of
extraordinary distribution to the sick, is perfectly useless. For either
they will receive it without any recital of the institution of Christ,
or the minister will accompany the sign with a true explication of the
mystery. If nothing be said, it is an abuse and corruption. If the
promises are repeated and the mystery declared, that those who are about
to receive it may communicate with advantage, we have no reason to doubt
that this is the true consecration. What end will be answered, then, by
the former consecration, which, having been pronounced when the sick
persons were not present, is of no avail to them? But it will be
alleged, that those who adopt this practice have the example of the
ancient Church in their favour. This I confess; but in a matter of such
great importance, and in which any error must be highly dangerous, there
is nothing so safe as to follow the truth itself.
XL. Now, as we perceive this sacred bread of the Lord’s supper to be
spiritual food, grateful and delicious as well as salutary to the
sincere worshippers of God, who, in the participation of it, experience
Christ to be their life, whom it stimulates to thanksgiving, whom it
exhorts to mutual charity among themselves; so, on the contrary, it is
changed into a most noxious poison to all whose faith it does not
nourish and confirm, and whom it does not excite to thanksgiving and
charity. For as corporeal food, when it offends a diseased stomach,
becoming itself corrupted, is found rather noxious than nutritious, so
this spiritual food, when it meets with a soul polluted by iniquity,
only precipitates it into a more dreadful ruin; not, indeed, from any
fault in the food, but because “unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving nothing is pure,”[1320] however it may be otherwise
sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “He that
eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord, and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the
Lord’s body.”[1321] Persons of this description, who, without one
particle of faith, or the least feeling of charity, intrude themselves,
like so many swine, to seize the supper of the Lord, have no discernment
of the Lord’s body. For, as they do not believe that body to be their
life, they treat it with the utmost dishonour they are capable of
casting upon it, robbing it of its dignity, and receiving it in such a
manner as to pollute and profane it. And as, amidst their dissension and
alienation from their brethren, they presume to mingle the sacred symbol
of Christ’s body with their discords, it is not owing to them that the
body of Christ is not divided, and every member severed from the rest.
Therefore they are justly represented as guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, which they so shamefully pollute with their sacrilegious
impiety. By this unworthy eating they receive their own condemnation.
For though they have no faith fixed on Christ, yet in their reception of
the sacrament they profess that there is no salvation for them any where
except in him, and renounce every other dependence. Wherefore they are
their own accusers; they give testimony against themselves; they seal
their own condemnation. Moreover, while divided and distracted from
their brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they have no part
in Christ, yet they testify that the only way of salvation is to
participate of Christ, and to be united to him. For this reason, Paul
gave the following injunction: “Let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;”[1322] by which, I
apprehend, he meant that every man should retire into himself, and
consider whether, with sincere confidence of heart, he relies on the
salvation procured by Christ; whether he acknowledges it by the
confession of his mouth; whether he aspires after an imitation of Christ
in the pursuit of integrity and holiness; whether, after the example of
Christ, he is ready to devote himself to his brethren, and to
communicate himself to them with whom he has a common interest in
Christ; whether, as he himself is acknowledged by Christ, he in like
manner considers all his brethren as members of his body; whether he
desires to cherish, preserve, and assist them as his own members. Not
that these duties of faith and charity can now be perfect in us; but
because this is the point which we ought to feel the most ardent desires
and exert the most strenuous efforts to attain, that our faith may be
more and more increased, and our charity strengthened from day to day.
XLI. In general, when they have intended to prepare persons for this
worthy participation of the sacrament, they have dreadfully harassed and
tortured miserable consciences, and yet have not mentioned a single
thing which the case required. They have said that those “eat worthily,”
who are in a state of grace. To be in a state of grace, they have
explained to consist in being pure and cleansed from all sin—a doctrine
which would exclude all the men who now live, or ever have lived upon
earth, from the benefit of this sacrament. For if it be necessary for us
to derive our worthiness from ourselves, we are undone; nothing awaits
us but ruin, confusion, and despair. Though we strive with all our
powers, we shall gain nothing, at last, but a discovery that we are most
unworthy, after having laboured to the utmost to find some worthiness.
To heal this wound, they have contrived a method of attaining
worthiness; which is, that having, as far as we can, examined our
consciences, and required from ourselves an account of all our actions,
we should purge ourselves from our unworthiness by contrition,
confession, and satisfaction; but what kind of purgation this is, we
have already stated in a place more suitable to the discussion of it. As
far as relates to the present subject, I observe that these consolations
are too poor and unsubstantial for consciences disturbed, distressed,
dejected, and overwhelmed with a sense of their sins. For if the Lord,
by his express interdiction, admits none to a participation of the
supper, but those who are righteous and innocent, it requires no little
care in any individual to attain an assurance of his possession of that
righteousness, which he finds to be required by God. Now, what ground of
assurance have we, that God is satisfied with persons who have done what
they could? And even if this were the case, when shall any man be found
who can venture to declare that he has done all that he could? Thus,
while no certain assurance of our worthiness can be obtained, the
entrance to the sacrament will always remain closed by that dreadful
interdiction, which denounces that “he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”
XLII. Now, it is easy to judge what kind of doctrine this is which
prevails in the Papacy, and from what author it has proceeded; which by
its extreme austerity deprives and robs miserable sinners, who are
already afflicted with trepidation and sorrow, of the consolation of
this sacrament, in which all the comforts of the gospel were set before
them. It was certainly impossible for the devil to take a more
compendious method of ruining men, than by infatuating them in such a
manner as to deprive them of all taste and relish for such food which
their heavenly and most merciful Father had intended for their
nourishment. That we may not precipitate ourselves into this abyss,
therefore, let us remember that this sacred banquet is medicine to the
sick, comfort to the sinner, alms to the poor; but that it would confer
no advantage on the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such
could be found. For as Christ is given to us in it for food, we
understand, that without him we pine, starve, and faint, as the body
loses its vigour from want of sustenance. Moreover, as he is given to us
for life, we understand that without him we are utterly dead in
ourselves. Wherefore the best and only worthiness that we can present to
God, is to offer him our vileness and unworthiness, that he may make us
worthy of his mercy; to despair in ourselves, that we may find
consolation in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be exalted by him;
to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; likewise to aspire
to that unity which he enjoins upon us in his supper; and as he makes us
all to be one in himself, so it should be our desire that we may all
have one mind, one heart, and one tongue. If we have these things well
considered and digested in our minds, though we may be disturbed, we
shall never be subverted by such reflections as this: Needy and
destitute of every good, defiled with the pollution of sin, and half
dead, how could we worthily eat the Lord’s body? We shall rather
consider, that we come as paupers to the liberal Benefactor, as patients
to the Physician, as sinners to the Author of righteousness, as persons
dead to the fountain of life; that the worthiness which is required by
God consists principally in faith, which attributes every thing to
Christ, and places no dependence on ourselves, and, secondly, in
charity, even that charity which it is enough for us to present to God
in an imperfect state, that he may increase and improve it; for we
cannot produce it in a state of perfection. Others, who have agreed with
us that the worthiness which is enjoined consists in faith and charity,
have nevertheless fallen into a considerable error respecting the degree
of that worthiness, requiring a perfection of faith to which nothing can
ever approach, and a charity equal to that which Christ has manifested
toward us. But by this requisition they exclude all men from access to
this sacred supper, as much as the persons to whom we adverted before.
For if their opinion were admitted, no person could receive it, but
unworthily; since all, without a single exception, would be convinced of
their imperfection. And surely it must betray extreme ignorance, not to
say stupidity, to require in the reception of the sacrament, that
perfection which would render the sacrament unnecessary and useless; for
it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the imperfect and feeble,
to awaken, excite, stimulate, and exercise their graces of faith and
charity, and to correct the defects of both.
XLIII. With respect to the external ceremonial, whether believers take
the bread in their hands or not; whether they divide it between them, or
every individual eat that which is given to him; whether they return the
cup into the hand of the deacon, or deliver it to the person who is
next; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be
red or white; is not of the least importance. These things are
indifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain,
however, that the custom of the ancient Church was, that every one
should take the bread into his hand. And Christ said “Divide it among
yourselves.”[1323] History informs us, that leavened and common bread
was used before the time of Alexander, bishop of Rome, who was the first
advocate for unleavened bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it
was to dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle,
rather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal to all
who feel the least concern for piety, whether they do not clearly
perceive, how much more conspicuously the glory of God appears in this
use of the sacrament, and how much greater abundance of spiritual
consolation and delight believers enjoy in it, than in those
insignificant and theatrical fooleries which only tend to deceive the
minds of the gazing multitude. This they call keeping the people in
religion, when they lead them into any thing they please, under the
stupefaction and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to
defend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally aware how
early chrism and exorcism were used in baptism, and how soon after the
age of the apostles, corruptions were introduced into the Lord’s supper;
but this is the confidence of human presumption, which can never
restrain itself from trifling with the mysteries of God. But let us
remember, that God holds the obedience of his word in such high
estimation, that it is the standard by which he appoints us to judge
even his angels and the whole world. Now, leaving all this mass of
ceremonies, let us remark, that the Lord’s supper might be most properly
administered, if it were set before the Church very frequently, and at
least once in every week in the following manner: The service should
commence with public prayer; in the next place, a sermon should be
delivered; then, the bread and wine being placed upon the table, the
minister should recite the institution of the supper, should declare the
promises which are left to us in it, and, at the same time, should
excommunicate all those who are excluded from it by the prohibition of
the Lord; after this, prayer should be offered, that with the same
benignity with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would
also teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of heart,
and that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would, in his mercy,
make us worthy of such a feast. Then either some psalms should be sung,
or a portion of Scripture should be read, and believers, in a becoming
order, should participate of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking
the bread and distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people;
after the conclusion of the supper, an exhortation should be given to
sincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a
deportment worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgivings should be
rendered, and praises sung, to God; and to close the whole, the Church
should be dismissed in peace.
XLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting the
sacrament, abundantly show that it was not instituted for the purpose of
being received once in a year, and that in a careless and formal manner,
as is now the general practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated
by all Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of
Christ; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen their
faith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to confess and
celebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in their hearts, and
promote the mutual exercise of that charity, the bond of which they
would see in the unity of the body of Christ. For whenever we
communicate in the symbol of the Lord’s body, it is like the interchange
of a mutual pledge, by which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the
duties of charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he
may injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he can assist
him, when necessity requires and opportunity admits. That such was the
practice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned by Luke, when he says
that believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”[1324] The
invariable custom, therefore, was, that no assembly of the Church should
be held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the
Lord’s supper administered, and alms given. That this was the order
established among the Corinthians, may be fairly concluded from the
Epistles of Paul; and it is well known to have been followed for many
ages after. For hence those ancient canons, which are attributed to
Anacletus and Calixtus, “that, after the consecration is finished, all
shall communicate, on pain of expulsion from the Church.” And the
ancient canons which are ascribed to the apostles, say, “that those who
continue not to the end, and receive not the sacrament, ought to be
corrected as disturbers of the Church.” In the Council of Antioch, also,
it was decreed, that those who enter into the Church, hear the sermon,
and retire from the communion, be excluded from the Church till they
shall have corrected this fault. And though in the first Council of
Toledo, this decree was either mitigated, or at least enacted in a
milder form, yet there also it was ordained, that those who shall be
found never to communicate after having heard the sermon, be admonished;
and that, if they obey not the first admonition, they be excommunicated.
XLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy fathers with a view
to retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration of the communion,
which had been transmitted by the apostles themselves, and which they
perceived to be highly beneficial to believers, but by negligence to be
gradually falling into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting
the age in which he lived, when he says, “The sacrament of this thing,
that is, of the unity of the body of our Lord, is prepared on the table
of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at
stated intervals of time; and is thence received by some to life, by
others to destruction.” And in his first epistle to Januarius: “Some
receive the body and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive
them on certain days; in some Churches, not a day passes without the
administration of the sacrament; in others, it is administered only on
Saturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday.” But the people in
general, being, as we have observed, sometimes too remiss, the holy
fathers stimulated them with severe reproofs, that they might not appear
to connive at such negligence. Of this we have an example in a homily of
Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians: “To him who dishonoured the
feast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down? but, How camest
thou in hither?[1325] Whoever is present here, and is not a partaker of
the mysteries, is wicked and impudent. I appeal to you, if any one be
invited to a feast, and come, wash his hands, sit down, and apparently
make every preparation for partaking of it, and after all taste
nothing,—will he not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who
has provided it? So you, who appear among them who, by prayer prepare
themselves to receive the sacred food, who by the very circumstance of
not departing, confess yourself to be one of their number, and after all
do not participate with them, would it not have been better for you not
to have made your appearance among them? You will tell me you are
unworthy. Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which
is a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery.”
XLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the practice which in
their time had already been adopted in the Eastern Churches, for the
people to attend as spectators of the celebration of the sacrament, and
not to partake of it. And that custom, which enjoins believers to
communicate only once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the
devil, whoever were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said
that Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree; which
there is not the least reason for believing to have been such as is now
represented. It is probable that the regulation which he made was not
ill calculated for the interest of the Church under the circumstances of
those times. For there is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set
before the faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there
any more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate; but
as it would scarcely ever happen that all could communicate together,
and it was necessary that those who were mixed with unbelievers and
idolaters, should testify their faith by some external sign,—that holy
man, for the sake of order and discipline, appointed that day for all
the Christians at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a
participation of the Lord’s supper. The regulation of Zepherinus was
good in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors, when they
made a certain law that there should be one communion in a year; the
consequence of which has been, that almost all men, when they have
communicated once, resign themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had
fairly excused themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different
practice ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week the
table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of
Christians, and the promises to have been declared for their spiritual
nourishment; no person ought to have been compelled to partake, but all
ought to have been exhorted and stimulated, and those who were
negligent, to have been reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would
have assembled in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for
complaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced this
custom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders men slothful
and careless all the rest of the time. We see that this abuse had
already begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom, but we see at the
same time how greatly it displeased him. For in the place which I have
just quoted, he severely complains of a great inequality in this matter,
that oftentimes people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of
the year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would come
at Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims, “O custom! O
presumption! In vain, then, is the daily oblation; in vain do we stand
at the altar. There is no one to partake with us.” So far is such a
practice from being sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom.
XLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation, which has
robbed or deprived the principal part of the people of God of one half
of the sacred supper; I mean the symbol of the blood, which has been
interdicted to the laity and the profane,—for by these titles they
distinguish the Lord’s heritage,—and has become the peculiar privilege
of the few who have received ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The
ordinance of the eternal God is, “Drink ye all of it;” which man has
repealed and abrogated by a new and contrary law, ordaining that all
shall not drink of it. And these legislators, that they may not appear
to resist their God without reason, plead the dangers which might result
if this sacred cup were indiscriminately presented to all; as though
those dangers had not been foreseen and considered by the eternal wisdom
of God. In the next place, they argue with great subtlety, that one is
sufficient for both. For, if it be the body, they say, it is the whole
of Christ, who cannot now be separated from his body. The body,
therefore, contains the blood. See how human reason is at variance with
God, when it has once been left to its own vagaries. Exhibiting the
bread, our Lord says, “This is my body;” exhibiting the cup, he says,
“This is my blood.” The audacity of human reason contradicts this, and
affirms that the bread is the blood, and that the wine is the body; as
if the Lord had distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and
by signs, without any cause, and as if it had ever been heard that the
body or blood of Christ was called God and man. Certainly, if he had
intended to designate his whole person, he might have said, “It is I,”
as the Scripture tells us he did on other occasions; and not, “This is
my body; this is my blood.” But, with a view to aid the weakness of our
faith, he exhibits the bread and the cup separately, to teach us that he
is sufficient for drink as well as for food. Now, let one of these parts
be taken away, and we shall find only half of our nourishment in him.
Though it were true, then, as they pretend, that the blood is in the
bread, and the body in the cup, yet they defraud the souls of believers
of that confirmation which Christ has delivered as necessary for them.
Therefore, leaving their subtleties, let us hold fast the benefit which
arises from the double pledge which Christ has ordained.
XLVIII. I am aware of the cavils advanced on this subject by the
ministers of Satan, who are accustomed to treat the Scripture with
contempt. In the first place, they plead, that a simple act affords no
sufficient ground from which to deduce a rule of perpetual obligation on
the observance of the Church. But it is false to call it a simple act;
for Christ not only gave the cup to his apostles, but also commanded
them to do the same in time to come. For it is the language of command,
“Drink ye all of it.” And Paul mentions its having been practised in
such a way as fully implies its being a positive ordinance. The second
subterfuge is, that Christ admitted none but the apostles to a
participation of this supper, whom he had already chosen and admitted
into the order of sacrificing priests. But I would wish them to give me
answers to five questions, from which they will not be able to escape,
but their misrepresentations will be easily refuted. First; By what
oracle have they obtained this solution, so inconsistent with the word
of God? The Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus; but it
does not obscure the dignity of Christ so as to call them sacrificing
priests—a name which I shall notice in the proper place. Though he then
gave the sacrament to the twelve, yet he commanded that they should do
the same; that is, that they should distribute it among them in a
similar manner. Secondly; why, in that purer period, for almost a
thousand years after the apostles, were all, without exception, admitted
to the participation of both symbols? Was the ancient Church ignorant
what guests Christ had admitted to his supper? Any hesitation or evasion
would betray the most consummate impudence. Ecclesiastical histories and
works of the fathers are still extant, which furnish clear testimonies
of this fact. Tertullian says, “The flesh is fed with the body and blood
of Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God.” Ambrose said to
Theodosius, “With such hands how will you receive the sacred body of the
Lord? With what audacity will you drink his sacred blood?” Jerome says,
“The priests consecrate the eucharist and distribute the Lord’s blood to
the people.” Chrysostom says, “It is not as it was under the ancient
law, when the priest ate one part, and the people another; but to all is
presented one body and one cup. Every thing in the eucharist is common
to the priest and to the people.” And the same is attested in various
places by Augustine.
XLIX. But why do I dispute about a thing that is so evident? Let any one
read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and he will find them abound with
such testimonies. Nor did this custom fall into disuse while a particle
of purity remained in the Church. Gregory, who may be justly called the
last bishop of Rome, shows that it was observed in his time. He says,
“You have now learned what the blood of the Lamb is, not by hearing, but
by drinking. His blood is drunk by the faithful.” And it even continued
for four hundred years after his death, notwithstanding the universal
degeneracy which had taken place. Nor was it considered merely as a
custom, but as an inviolable law. For the Divine institution was then
reverenced, and no doubt was entertained of the criminality of
separating things which the Lord had united. For Gelasius, bishop of
Rome, speaks in the following manner: “We have understood that some,
only receiving the Lord’s body, abstain from the cup; who, as they
appear to be enslaved by an unaccountable superstition, should, without
doubt, either receive the sacrament entire, or entirely abstain from it.
For no division of this mystery can be made without great sacrilege.”
Attention was paid to those reasons of Cyprian, which surely ought to be
sufficient to influence a Christian mind. He says, “How do we teach or
stimulate them to shed their blood in the confession of Christ, if we
refuse his blood to them who are about to engage in the conflict? Or how
do we prepare them for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit
them, by the right of communion, to drink the cup of the Lord in the
Church?” The canonists restrict the decree of Gelasius to the priests,
but this is too puerile a cavil to need any refutation.
L. Thirdly; Why did Christ, when he presented the bread, simply say,
“Take, eat;” but when he presented the cup, “Drink ye _all_ of it;” as
if he expressly intended to guard against the subtlety of Satan?
Fourthly; If, as our adversaries pretend, our Lord admitted to his
supper none but sacrificing priests, what man can be found so
presumptuous as to invite to a participation of it strangers whom the
Lord has excluded? and to a participation of that gift, over which they
could have no power, without any command from him who alone could give
it? And with what confidence do they now take upon them to distribute to
the people the symbol of the body of Christ, if they have neither the
command nor example of the Lord? Fifthly; Did Paul affirm what was
false, when he said to the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord
that which also I delivered to you?”[1326] For he afterwards declares
what he had delivered, which was, that all, without any distinction,
should communicate in both symbols. If Paul had “received of the Lord,”
that all were to be admitted without any distinction, let them consider
from whom they have received, who exclude almost all the people of God;
for they cannot now pretend their doctrine to have originated from God,
with whom is “not yea and nay.”[1327] And yet they dare to shelter such
abominations under the name of the Church, and to defend them under that
pretext; as if the Church could consist of those antichrists, who so
easily trample under foot, mutilate, and abolish the doctrine and
institutions of Christ; or as if the apostolic Church, in which true
religion displayed all its influence, were not the true Church.
Footnote 1238:
Matt. xxvi. 26, 28. Mark xiv. 22, 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.
24, 25.
Footnote 1239:
John vi. 35, 55-58.
Footnote 1240:
John vi. 51.
Footnote 1241:
Eph. iii. 17.
Footnote 1242:
John vi. 35.
Footnote 1243:
John vi. 53.
Footnote 1244:
Acts ii. 41.
Footnote 1245:
Luke xxii. 20.
Footnote 1246:
1 John i. 1-4.
Footnote 1247:
John vi. 51.
Footnote 1248:
John vi. 55.
Footnote 1249:
John v. 26.
Footnote 1250:
Eph. i. 23.
Footnote 1251:
Eph. iv. 15, 16.
Footnote 1252:
1 Cor. vi. 15.
Footnote 1253:
Eph. v. 30.
Footnote 1254:
Eph. v. 32.
Footnote 1255:
1 Cor. x. 16.
Footnote 1256:
Rom. viii. 9, 11.
Footnote 1257:
John vi. 35, 50.
Footnote 1258:
1 Cor. x. 17.
Footnote 1259:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 1260:
Exod. iv. 2-4; vii. 10, 12.
Footnote 1261:
1 Cor. x. 16.
Footnote 1262:
1 Cor. xi. 26.
Footnote 1263:
Acts ii. 42.
Footnote 1264:
Jer. xi. 19, (according to the Vulgate and Septuagint.)
Footnote 1265:
Psalm lxix. 21.
Footnote 1266:
Isaiah liii. 2, 4.
Footnote 1267:
Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Mark xiv. 22-24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.
23-25.
Footnote 1268:
Gen. xvii. 10.
Footnote 1269:
Exod. xii. 11.
Footnote 1270:
Exod. et Lev. passim.
Footnote 1271:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 1272:
Exod. iii. 2.
Footnote 1273:
Psalm lxxxiv. 7; xlii. 2.
Footnote 1274:
Matt. iii. 16.
Footnote 1275:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 1276:
1 Cor. x. 16.
Footnote 1277:
Gen. xvii. 10. Exod. xii. 11.
Footnote 1278:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 1279:
John vii. 39.
Footnote 1280:
Titus iii. 2.
Footnote 1281:
1 Cor. xii. 12.
Footnote 1282:
Heb. ii. 14; iv. 15.
Footnote 1283:
Acts i. 11.
Footnote 1284:
1 Cor. xv. 47.
Footnote 1285:
Phil. ii. 7.
Footnote 1286:
James i. 21.
Footnote 1287:
Luke i. 34.
Footnote 1288:
John xiv. 2, 3, 28.
Footnote 1289:
Matt. xxvi. 11.
Footnote 1290:
Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 9.
Footnote 1291:
Phil. iii. 20.
Footnote 1292:
Acts i. 11.
Footnote 1293:
Acts iii. 21.
Footnote 1294:
Luke xxiv. 39.
Footnote 1295:
Phil. iii. 20, 21.
Footnote 1296:
John xx. 17.
Footnote 1297:
Acts vii. 55.
Footnote 1298:
Acts xxii. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 8.
Footnote 1299:
Luke xxiv. 31.
Footnote 1300:
Luke xxiv. 16.
Footnote 1301:
Matt. xxviii. 20.
Footnote 1302:
John iii. 13; i. 18.
Footnote 1303:
1 Cor. ii. 8.
Footnote 1304:
1 John iv. 3.
Footnote 1305:
John vi. 56.
Footnote 1306:
Matt. xiii. 4-7.
Footnote 1307:
1 Cor. xi. 27.
Footnote 1308:
Matt. vii. 6.
Footnote 1309:
John vi. 54.
Footnote 1310:
2 Cor. xii. 7.
Footnote 1311:
1 Cor. xi. 29.
Footnote 1312:
John vi. 56.
Footnote 1313:
Acts ii. 42.
Footnote 1314:
1 Cor. xi. 23.
Footnote 1315:
Col. iii. 1.
Footnote 1316:
Psalm l. 15.
Footnote 1317:
Luke xxii. 10.
Footnote 1318:
1 Cor. xi. 26.
Footnote 1319:
1 Cor. x. 16, 17.
Footnote 1320:
Titus i. 15.
Footnote 1321:
1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.
Footnote 1322:
1 Cor. xi. 28.
Footnote 1323:
Luke xxii. 17.
Footnote 1324:
Acts ii. 42.
Footnote 1325:
Matt. xxii. 12.
Footnote 1326:
1 Cor. xi. 23.
Footnote 1327:
2 Cor. i. 18.